Hillary won more votes for President

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

This shows how wholly unqualified Jill Stein is, as much as it shows how smart Nina Turner is.

how so?

Because Nina Turner, as exciting as she may be, is not ready to be the VP or the President. Her experience in no way qualifies her for that position. Jill Stein's decision to invite her shows me that she did not weigh the role of the president when making that decision, she simply looked for a way to suck votes from Clinton.

Jill Stein knows that she has no chance to win the presidency - her mandate is to get her progressive messaging out to as many people as possible ... if she can attract a running mate that has significant followers - that ultimately helps the cause ... reaching out to someone like turner was a smart decision ...

as for Turner - time will tell if remaining a democrat was the right decision if she is truly interested in moving the progressive agenda forward ...

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

This shows how wholly unqualified Jill Stein is, as much as it shows how smart Nina Turner is.

how so?

Because Nina Turner, as exciting as she may be, is not ready to be the VP or the President. Her experience in no way qualifies her for that position. Jill Stein's decision to invite her shows me that she did not weigh the role of the president when making that decision, she simply looked for a way to suck votes from Clinton.

Jill Stein knows that she has no chance to win the presidency - her mandate is to get her progressive messaging out to as many people as possible ... if she can attract a running mate that has significant followers - that ultimately helps the cause ... reaching out to someone like turner was a smart decision ...

as for Turner - time will tell if remaining a democrat was the right decision if she is truly interested in moving the progressive agenda forward ...

Well a protest candidate enabling a Trump presidency is idiocy in my mind.

of course it is ... to you ...

either way ... your effort to discredit Stein's campaign failed ...

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

This shows how wholly unqualified Jill Stein is, as much as it shows how smart Nina Turner is.

how so?

Because Nina Turner, as exciting as she may be, is not ready to be the VP or the President. Her experience in no way qualifies her for that position. Jill Stein's decision to invite her shows me that she did not weigh the role of the president when making that decision, she simply looked for a way to suck votes from Clinton.

Jill Stein knows that she has no chance to win the presidency - her mandate is to get her progressive messaging out to as many people as possible ... if she can attract a running mate that has significant followers - that ultimately helps the cause ... reaching out to someone like turner was a smart decision ...

as for Turner - time will tell if remaining a democrat was the right decision if she is truly interested in moving the progressive agenda forward ...

Well a protest candidate enabling a Trump presidency is idiocy in my mind.

of course it is ... to you ...

either way ... your effort to discredit Stein's campaign failed ...

I don't need to discredit it. The voters have done it already. Her numbers in her statewide races along with her ongoing presidential runs is evidence enough. I'm just glad Turner and Sanders sees the folly.

voters backing a lesser of two evils candidate in no way discredits her campaign ... all it does is show how truly weak the democratic process is ...

Why would anyone bother to discredit Stein's campaign? Because they feel threatened by it, by her? Because they are afraid of having an alternative viewpoint expressed? Because that viewpoint may bring some new people on board with it? Because anything that is not status quo is something they shun? Food for thought.

tonifig8 said:

68% of the American public say she's untrustworthy. I'm pretty sure that number will only go up. Our next President Ladies and Gentlemen.

Some more info on the softball Fox interview. Politifact says, "Pants on Fire"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

America: "Hillary, we don't trust you as far as we can throw you but we will elect you anyway because we only feel safe inside our little box of status quo."

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

tonifig8 said:

68% of the American public say she's untrustworthy. I'm pretty sure that number will only go up. Our next President Ladies and Gentlemen.

Some more info on the softball Fox interview. Politifact says, "Pants on Fire"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

America: "Hillary, we don't rust you as far as we can throw you but we will elect you anyway because we only feel safe inside our little box of status quo."

Brian - would you like me to speak for all Stein supporters, the way you see fit to represent all HRC supporters? Are you arrogant enough to believe you speak for everyone?

I'm only speaking for the 68% tonifig mentioned, haha.

No, I'm not that arrogant. I only say what I perceive and to be honest, I do believe at least 68% of America is afraid to step outside their comfort zone kind of the same way abused people so often stay with the abuser. I've stayed in the box of fear before myself. But no more.

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

This shows how wholly unqualified Jill Stein is, as much as it shows how smart Nina Turner is.

how so?

Because Nina Turner, as exciting as she may be, is not ready to be the VP or the President. Her experience in no way qualifies her for that position. Jill Stein's decision to invite her shows me that she did not weigh the role of the president when making that decision, she simply looked for a way to suck votes from Clinton.

Jill Stein knows that she has no chance to win the presidency - her mandate is to get her progressive messaging out to as many people as possible ... if she can attract a running mate that has significant followers - that ultimately helps the cause ... reaching out to someone like turner was a smart decision ...

as for Turner - time will tell if remaining a democrat was the right decision if she is truly interested in moving the progressive agenda forward ...

Well a protest candidate enabling a Trump presidency is idiocy in my mind.

of course it is ... to you ...

either way ... your effort to discredit Stein's campaign failed ...

I don't need to discredit it. The voters have done it already. Her numbers in her statewide races along with her ongoing presidential runs is evidence enough. I'm just glad Turner and Sanders sees the folly.

voters backing a lesser of two evils candidate in no way discredits her campaign ... all it does is show how truly weak the democratic process is ...

"Evil" in your personal judgment obviously. Others do not take the condemnation route. We do not judge the speck in our brother's eye, failing to see the plank in our own.

say that to the innocent civilians that continue to die as the consequences for military strikes in the places of the world that no one really wants to talk about ... places where your "great economy" thrives ... evil is putting $$$ in front of lives ...

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

tonifig8 said:

68% of the American public say she's untrustworthy. I'm pretty sure that number will only go up. Our next President Ladies and Gentlemen.

Some more info on the softball Fox interview. Politifact says, "Pants on Fire"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

America: "Hillary, we don't rust you as far as we can throw you but we will elect you anyway because we only feel safe inside our little box of status quo."

Brian - would you like me to speak for all Stein supporters, the way you see fit to represent all HRC supporters? Are you arrogant enough to believe you speak for everyone?

I'm only speaking for the 68% tonifig mentioned, haha.

No, I'm not that arrogant. I only say what I perceive and to be honest, I do believe at least 68% of America is afraid to step outside their comfort zone kind of the same way abused people so often stay with the abuser. I've stayed in the box of fear before myself. But no more.

I think you are jumping to conclusions regarding the degree of 'untrustworthiness', what that means and how it affects her capacity to be the President. I don't know how I would answer that poll question myself, but it has nothing to do with being a sheep as Sander's supporters so arrogantly and incorrectly ascribe. I believe she has the best policies, including her original positions on TPP and the college education. I believe this country is doing pretty damn well economically right now, particularly those with both a college education and the motivation to succeed. So maybe you are unhappy with the status quo, but I don't even know what that means. The country continues to move forward incrementally. Sometimes it's a step back before two forward (like a recession for example), but that's cyclical economics for you. I say... GREAT JOB OBAMA! NOW DON'T FUCK IT UP HILLARY.

I think if we're going to call one group "sheep" we need to call all groups of people "sheep". Which is why I prefer to remain a lone wolf.

Wow- saying our country is doing well economically just blows me away for two reasons. 1) Our economic stability is a facade build on a foundation that is rotten through and through. It's like people telling me I look young for my age (I admit it, I do) but if they could see the wear and tear inside they wouldn't say that. and 2) This begs me to ask the question, why do you place such a high value on economics yet make no mention of the impact we have on the resources we are gobbling up that drive that contraption called our "strong economy"? Are you aware of the concept of earth over-shoot day? Do you understand that we cannot continue to overshoot by August what the earth provides for us in a full calendar year?

And that's what I mean by status quo: pretending everything is ok, pretending we can keep gobbling up the earth to suit our greedy desires. It's like they used to say up in Oregon: "We'll cut all the trees down on earth. And them we'll cut them all down on the other planets." (Or something dumb like that.)

Our ability to navigate a dreadful crisis in 2008 using the monetary policy tools, and the fact that, counter to the long term depression that afflicted us in the 30's and other panics throughout the 19th century, we've moved unemployment into the 5's%. That's pretty damn good. Look at our economy and joblessness compared to the rest of the world? Who has recovered more soundly than us? No offense Brian, but I know you are not an economics guy so I question how you can say we are built on a facade. If we were, that facade would have come down and trashed multiple industries for long periods of time, not just housing (which has recovered).

And I know you are very tuned into the environment. I'm a pro-enviro guy, but I admit I don't focus on it every day. I certainly understand that we can't continue to overshoot, but I also think a Democratic admin will move us much closer to your goals than a GOP. The Stein option is a fucking joke, so I prefer one that might get us some results. I prefer one that actually believes in investing in alternate energy sources, continues to find ways to create more sustainable food sources, etc. If you want the real alternative, look at what Trump said today: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290093-trump-wind-power-kills-all-your-birds

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

tonifig8 said:

68% of the American public say she's untrustworthy. I'm pretty sure that number will only go up. Our next President Ladies and Gentlemen.

Some more info on the softball Fox interview. Politifact says, "Pants on Fire"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

America: "Hillary, we don't rust you as far as we can throw you but we will elect you anyway because we only feel safe inside our little box of status quo."

Brian - would you like me to speak for all Stein supporters, the way you see fit to represent all HRC supporters? Are you arrogant enough to believe you speak for everyone?

I'm only speaking for the 68% tonifig mentioned, haha.

No, I'm not that arrogant. I only say what I perceive and to be honest, I do believe at least 68% of America is afraid to step outside their comfort zone kind of the same way abused people so often stay with the abuser. I've stayed in the box of fear before myself. But no more.

I think you are jumping to conclusions regarding the degree of 'untrustworthiness', what that means and how it affects her capacity to be the President. I don't know how I would answer that poll question myself, but it has nothing to do with being a sheep as Sander's supporters so arrogantly and incorrectly ascribe. I believe she has the best policies, including her original positions on TPP and the college education. I believe this country is doing pretty damn well economically right now, particularly those with both a college education and the motivation to succeed. So maybe you are unhappy with the status quo, but I don't even know what that means. The country continues to move forward incrementally. Sometimes it's a step back before two forward (like a recession for example), but that's cyclical economics for you. I say... GREAT JOB OBAMA! NOW DON'T FUCK IT UP HILLARY.

I think if we're going to call one group "sheep" we need to call all groups of people "sheep". Which is why I prefer to remain a lone wolf.

Wow- saying our country is doing well economically just blows me away for two reasons. 1) Our economic stability is a facade build on a foundation that is rotten through and through. It's like people telling me I look young for my age (I admit it, I do) but if they could see the wear and tear inside they wouldn't say that. and 2) This begs me to ask the question, why do you place such a high value on economics yet make no mention of the impact we have on the resources we are gobbling up that drive that contraption called our "strong economy"? Are you aware of the concept of earth over-shoot day? Do you understand that we cannot continue to overshoot by August what the earth provides for us in a full calendar year?

And that's what I mean by status quo: pretending everything is ok, pretending we can keep gobbling up the earth to suit our greedy desires. It's like they used to say up in Oregon: "We'll cut all the trees down on earth. And them we'll cut them all down on the other planets." (Or something dumb like that.)

Our ability to navigate a dreadful crisis in 2008 using the monetary policy tools, and the fact that, counter to the long term depression that afflicted us in the 30's and other panics throughout the 19th century, we've moved unemployment into the 5's%. That's pretty damn good. Look at our economy and joblessness compared to the rest of the world? Who has recovered more soundly than us? No offense Brian, but I know you are not an economics guy so I question how you can say we are built on a facade. If we were, that facade would have come down and trashed multiple industries for long periods of time, not just housing (which has recovered).

And I know you are very tuned into the environment. I'm a pro-enviro guy, but I admit I don't focus on it every day. I certainly understand that we can't continue to overshoot, but I also think a Democratic admin will move us much closer to your goals than a GOP. The Stein option is a fucking joke, so I prefer one that might get us some results. I prefer one that actually believes in investing in alternate energy sources, continues to find ways to create more sustainable food sources, etc. If you want the real alternative, look at what Trump said today: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290093-trump-wind-power-kills-all-your-birds

If you believe economy trumps environment, we may be at an impasse with this discussion.

As for being an economics guy, I guess it depends on what economics you are talking about. Are you familiar with Bill McKibben's book DEEP ECONOMY (the italics button is gone, damn it!), Yvon Chouinard's business book LET MY PEOPLE GO SURFING (it really is a business book, not a surf book), James Howard Kunstler's THE LONG EMERGENCY, any of the works or Richard Heinberg, or Derrick Jensen's ENDGAME? I've studied these books and they all say a lot about economics but they also talk about limits to resources and how our business practives affect our viability as a species. Pure economics does not consider the limits to it's own game. It does not understand that by ignoring the basic laws of ecology it endangers itself. It is a hyperventilating animal that will eventually suffocate itself by depleting its own oxygen.