OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.
The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?
So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.
Remember 2008? People against Obama said he didn't have enough experience to be president, he was only a community leader...
Exactly! And he served two terms!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.
The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?
So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.
Brian, no one is saying that experience is the be-all end-all for choosing a candidate. But experience in government is but ONE of the qualifiications that must be considered. Does it disqualify, in my opinion, Trump or O'Leary from being a decent candidate? No. it's part of the full package.
Stein is a great candidate. It's unfortunate that the US election process doesn't give any official time to anyone outside of the establishment. There is no question that needs to change. In the past, Canada has included all 5 parties in the official debates. One of them even being a nonsensical party that only has the interests of Quebec in its platform.
We all know the only reason Clinton is getting elected is that it's too risky to split the left vote and let Trump win. That's it. That's all.
Do you think that, if Stein had been given the same benefits as the R and D candidates, she would have had a legitimate chance? Even in Canada, our Green Party got about 3-4% of the vote. Because splitting the vote and handing the government to the right is a very real concern for many on the left.
Hugh, first of all, Trump will loose massively. I will eat a Lima beans, cilantro and anchovies pizza if I am wrong. (I hate Lima beans, cilantro and anchovies).
Secondly, regarding the bold print above, that is exactly why, at the very least here in non-swing states, a vote for Stein is imperative. What a great way to send a message about the REAL changes that need to take place! I so wish more people would get behind that.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.
The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?
So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.
Brian, no one is saying that experience is the be-all end-all for choosing a candidate. But experience in government is but ONE of the qualifiications that must be considered. Does it disqualify, in my opinion, Trump or O'Leary from being a decent candidate? No. it's part of the full package.
Stein is a great candidate. It's unfortunate that the US election process doesn't give any official time to anyone outside of the establishment. There is no question that needs to change. In the past, Canada has included all 5 parties in the official debates. One of them even being a nonsensical party that only has the interests of Quebec in its platform.
We all know the only reason Clinton is getting elected is that it's too risky to split the left vote and let Trump win. That's it. That's all.
Do you think that, if Stein had been given the same benefits as the R and D candidates, she would have had a legitimate chance? Even in Canada, our Green Party got about 3-4% of the vote. Because splitting the vote and handing the government to the right is a very real concern for many on the left.
Hugh, first of all, Trump will loose massively. I will eat a Lima beans, cilantro and anchovies pizza if I am wrong. (I hate Lima beans, cilantro and anchovies).
Secondly, regarding the bold print above, that is exactly why, at the very least here in non-swing states, a vote for Stein is imperative. What a great way to send a message about the REAL changes that need to take place! I so wish more people would get behind that.
Lima beans??? Come on brother, Lima beans are the shit!
OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.
The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?
So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.
Remember 2008? People against Obama said he didn't have enough experience to be president, he was only a community leader...
OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.
The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?
So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.
Brian, no one is saying that experience is the be-all end-all for choosing a candidate. But experience in government is but ONE of the qualifiications that must be considered. Does it disqualify, in my opinion, Trump or O'Leary from being a decent candidate? No. it's part of the full package.
Stein is a great candidate. It's unfortunate that the US election process doesn't give any official time to anyone outside of the establishment. There is no question that needs to change. In the past, Canada has included all 5 parties in the official debates. One of them even being a nonsensical party that only has the interests of Quebec in its platform.
We all know the only reason Clinton is getting elected is that it's too risky to split the left vote and let Trump win. That's it. That's all.
Do you think that, if Stein had been given the same benefits as the R and D candidates, she would have had a legitimate chance? Even in Canada, our Green Party got about 3-4% of the vote. Because splitting the vote and handing the government to the right is a very real concern for many on the left.
Hugh, first of all, Trump will loose massively. I will eat a Lima beans, cilantro and anchovies pizza if I am wrong. (I hate Lima beans, cilantro and anchovies).
Secondly, regarding the bold print above, that is exactly why, at the very least here in non-swing states, a vote for Stein is imperative. What a great way to send a message about the REAL changes that need to take place! I so wish more people would get behind that.
Lima beans??? Come on brother, Lima beans are the shit!
On pizza?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.
The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?
So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.
Remember 2008? People against Obama said he didn't have enough experience to be president, he was only a community leader...
Exactly! And he served two terms!
And the Cold War is back! Who da thunk it?
Exactly why we need someone who will bring on even more progressive change. Stein!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.
The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?
So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.
Brian, no one is saying that experience is the be-all end-all for choosing a candidate. But experience in government is but ONE of the qualifiications that must be considered. Does it disqualify, in my opinion, Trump or O'Leary from being a decent candidate? No. it's part of the full package.
Stein is a great candidate. It's unfortunate that the US election process doesn't give any official time to anyone outside of the establishment. There is no question that needs to change. In the past, Canada has included all 5 parties in the official debates. One of them even being a nonsensical party that only has the interests of Quebec in its platform.
We all know the only reason Clinton is getting elected is that it's too risky to split the left vote and let Trump win. That's it. That's all.
Do you think that, if Stein had been given the same benefits as the R and D candidates, she would have had a legitimate chance? Even in Canada, our Green Party got about 3-4% of the vote. Because splitting the vote and handing the government to the right is a very real concern for many on the left.
Hugh, first of all, Trump will loose massively. I will eat a Lima beans, cilantro and anchovies pizza if I am wrong. (I hate Lima beans, cilantro and anchovies).
Secondly, regarding the bold print above, that is exactly why, at the very least here in non-swing states, a vote for Stein is imperative. What a great way to send a message about the REAL changes that need to take place! I so wish more people would get behind that.
Of course, he's going to lose Brian... You knew it all along.
OK, now let's take a more serious look at the business of "leadership experience". Some here have suggested that Hillary is best qualified among those running for the job of president. But among her qualifications are experience in propagating war, being in favor of the use of fracking and receiving funding from the super rich. Jill Stein, some of you would argue, lacks the experience to be a leader. But what are some of her qualifications? Highly educated. Experience in caring for people. A strong desire to protect the planet. Much more in favor of seeking diplomatic solutions as opposed to starting wars. Which experience is more important? If you like war, don't care about the health of the planet and believe in the super rich and a shrinking middle class, you should vote for Hillary. If you believe in compassion, caring for people, peace, a healthy planet, you should vote for Stein.
The other thing some of you might add is that someone like Stein doesn't have the experience in government someone like Hillary has. To that I say, quite sincerely, so what? The president does not work every aspect of government any more than a CEO works every aspect of a corporations. Someone like Stein would be able to cover the areas she is inexperienced in with a strong cabinet and good advisors. She is smart. She would learn what she needs to know in areas in which she is weak and would find good advisors for those areas. Clinton is not going to do that. She doesn't show as strong concern for the environment as for big business. Guess which one is going to get priority? Guess which one is going to ruin your land base the quickest?
So if experience means status quo including war, wealth vs poor and a ruined planet, vote for Hillary. If you want a crack at a more equitable world with a healthier environment and a greater chance for peace, vote for Stein.
Brian, no one is saying that experience is the be-all end-all for choosing a candidate. But experience in government is but ONE of the qualifiications that must be considered. Does it disqualify, in my opinion, Trump or O'Leary from being a decent candidate? No. it's part of the full package.
Stein is a great candidate. It's unfortunate that the US election process doesn't give any official time to anyone outside of the establishment. There is no question that needs to change. In the past, Canada has included all 5 parties in the official debates. One of them even being a nonsensical party that only has the interests of Quebec in its platform.
We all know the only reason Clinton is getting elected is that it's too risky to split the left vote and let Trump win. That's it. That's all.
Do you think that, if Stein had been given the same benefits as the R and D candidates, she would have had a legitimate chance? Even in Canada, our Green Party got about 3-4% of the vote. Because splitting the vote and handing the government to the right is a very real concern for many on the left.
Hugh, first of all, Trump will loose massively. I will eat a Lima beans, cilantro and anchovies pizza if I am wrong. (I hate Lima beans, cilantro and anchovies).
Secondly, regarding the bold print above, that is exactly why, at the very least here in non-swing states, a vote for Stein is imperative. What a great way to send a message about the REAL changes that need to take place! I so wish more people would get behind that.
Of course, he's going to lose Brian... You knew it all along.
Yep! Would of put a hundred buck on it but no takers, haha!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.
Ah, no. It was rigged the whole time.
The election is not rigged against Trump, lmao. I can't believe you actually think that.
My guess is the election is rigged by Trump to be against Trump. I really don't think he wants the job- just the attention/ego ride.
I have certainly floated that theory myself - i.e. that he is trying to sabotage (not rig) his own campaign. I dunno, maybe, although the thing that I think really turned the election towards Clinton was the one thing that has been completely out of Trump's control, so if he was sabotaging things, he couldn't even do that right, lol.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.
Ah, no. It was rigged the whole time.
The election is not rigged against Trump, lmao. I can't believe you actually think that.
My guess is the election is rigged by Trump to be against Trump. I really don't think he wants the job- just the attention/ego ride.
Bingo...I've been saying that for a while...a billionaire who is causing shit, or him and the clintons rigged the election?
So you truly believe that Trump is acting on Clinton's behalf still? I know it's a theory that's out there, but I'm surprised some of you are taking it seriously with literally no evidence to rely on. I would personally need some actual proof of that... and if there were some, I wouldn't be shocked.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.
Ah, no. It was rigged the whole time.
The election is not rigged against Trump, lmao. I can't believe you actually think that.
My guess is the election is rigged by Trump to be against Trump. I really don't think he wants the job- just the attention/ego ride.
Bingo...I've been saying that for a while...a billionaire who is causing shit, or him and the clintons rigged the election?
So you truly believe that Trump is acting on Clinton's behalf still? I know it's a theory that's out there, but I'm surprised some of you are taking it seriously with literally no evidence to rely on. I would personally need some actual proof of that... and if there were some, I wouldn't be shocked.
I would need proof to prove that the election is fair. Certainly it is not. There is literally no proof to prove that Individual people (actual people who don't work in govt) votes matter anymore, but there is plenty of proof via emails showing how this game of Clinton's is rigged for her. See the Podesta thread.
If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.
Ah, no. It was rigged the whole time.
The election is not rigged against Trump, lmao. I can't believe you actually think that.
My guess is the election is rigged by Trump to be against Trump. I really don't think he wants the job- just the attention/ego ride.
Bingo...I've been saying that for a while...a billionaire who is causing shit, or him and the clintons rigged the election?
So you truly believe that Trump is acting on Clinton's behalf still? I know it's a theory that's out there, but I'm surprised some of you are taking it seriously with literally no evidence to rely on. I would personally need some actual proof of that... and if there were some, I wouldn't be shocked.
Feel free to find proof that the theory is wrong. As for me looking for proof, I'm not even going to attempt to find proof that either theory exist...probably neither theory can be proved even close to a 100%...but I'm convinced he definitely never wanted the job, I doubt he thought it'd get this far...either way I think the Americans got played big time to end up with these two candidates, but truthfully I'm having fun with it, a country that goes around bullying, meddling and war mongering the way they do are getting exactly what they deserve...
Post edited by lukin2006 on
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.
Ah, no. It was rigged the whole time.
The election is not rigged against Trump, lmao. I can't believe you actually think that.
My guess is the election is rigged by Trump to be against Trump. I really don't think he wants the job- just the attention/ego ride.
Bingo...I've been saying that for a while...a billionaire who is causing shit, or him and the clintons rigged the election?
So you truly believe that Trump is acting on Clinton's behalf still? I know it's a theory that's out there, but I'm surprised some of you are taking it seriously with literally no evidence to rely on. I would personally need some actual proof of that... and if there were some, I wouldn't be shocked.
I would need proof to prove that the election is fair. Certainly it is not. There is literally no proof to prove that Individual people (actual people who don't work in govt) votes matter anymore, but there is plenty of proof via emails showing how this game of Clinton's is rigged for her. See the Podesta thread.
I'm talking about Trump working on Clinton's behalf though. And I have read that thread, and no, I don't feel that the election is rigged. I think those emails just show politicians being politicians trying to win a campaign - both sides have an even playing field, and one is just playing a way better game in the insane arena of US politics. I feel like the primary process is completely fucked up and needs to be addressed though.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.
Ah, no. It was rigged the whole time.
The election is not rigged against Trump, lmao. I can't believe you actually think that.
My guess is the election is rigged by Trump to be against Trump. I really don't think he wants the job- just the attention/ego ride.
Bingo...I've been saying that for a while...a billionaire who is causing shit, or him and the clintons rigged the election?
So you truly believe that Trump is acting on Clinton's behalf still? I know it's a theory that's out there, but I'm surprised some of you are taking it seriously with literally no evidence to rely on. I would personally need some actual proof of that... and if there were some, I wouldn't be shocked.
I would need proof to prove that the election is fair. Certainly it is not. There is literally no proof to prove that Individual people (actual people who don't work in govt) votes matter anymore, but there is plenty of proof via emails showing how this game of Clinton's is rigged for her. See the Podesta thread.
I'm talking about Trump working on Clinton's behalf though. And I have read that thread, and no, I don't feel that the election is rigged. I think those emails just show politicians being politicians trying to win a campaign - both sides have an even playing field, and one is just playing a way better game in the insane arena of US politics. I feel like the primary process is completely fucked up and needs to be addressed though.
Yeah its just a theory...
I think the primary process will be addressed, so a Trump and Sanders can not make a serious run in the future.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.
Ah, no. It was rigged the whole time.
The election is not rigged against Trump, lmao. I can't believe you actually think that.
My guess is the election is rigged by Trump to be against Trump. I really don't think he wants the job- just the attention/ego ride.
Bingo...I've been saying that for a while...a billionaire who is causing shit, or him and the clintons rigged the election?
So you truly believe that Trump is acting on Clinton's behalf still? I know it's a theory that's out there, but I'm surprised some of you are taking it seriously with literally no evidence to rely on. I would personally need some actual proof of that... and if there were some, I wouldn't be shocked.
I would need proof to prove that the election is fair. Certainly it is not. There is literally no proof to prove that Individual people (actual people who don't work in govt) votes matter anymore, but there is plenty of proof via emails showing how this game of Clinton's is rigged for her. See the Podesta thread.
The emails show how a campaign can be run, which is separate from actual voting. You're suggesting that "votes don't matter", so a scenario where 75% voted for Sanders, half of those ballots would be shredded?
When I hear stories from friends about anxiety and worry and read all these stories about people feeling super uncertain about so many things- and for good reason- I think, shit man, wouldn't it be nice to have some leaders who really and truly give a rats ass at least about people's well being and a healthier planet. We could use that solid platform to swim to in rough seas. That and other people who care (lots of them here) and busload of faith to get by (thank you, Mr. Lou Reed).
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
Secondly, regarding the bold print above, that is exactly why, at the very least here in non-swing states, a vote for Stein is imperative. What a great way to send a message about the REAL changes that need to take place! I so wish more people would get behind that.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
That's right, nobody should be fooled by Hillary
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
And I have read that thread, and no, I don't feel that the election is rigged. I think those emails just show politicians being politicians trying to win a campaign - both sides have an even playing field, and one is just playing a way better game in the insane arena of US politics. I feel like the primary process is completely fucked up and needs to be addressed though.
I think the primary process will be addressed, so a Trump and Sanders can not make a serious run in the future.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/10/27/hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-stay-tight-lipped-on-post-election-unity.html