Hillary won more votes for President

the economy and all its metrics is the biggest fraud out there ... everything is based on "growth" ... the sky is falling if we don't have growth ... we have corporations that make decisions based on shareholder or stock value ... the concept of sustainability is lost on everyone ... and I'm not even just talking about the environment ... the antiquated conditions by which decisions are made do not translate as an indicator of the "health" of a nation ...

how someone can use the unemployment rate as a measure of how "great" everything is just shows how irrational the thinking is ... those stats are manipulated into making people feel like everything is ok ... when everything points to utter failure ...

brianlux said:

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.

I didn't say one trumped the other. These are two different discussion points. I'm with you on the environment, but I don't feel like I have to make a choice between the two. There is nothing that Stein could accomplish in a representative government that Clinton cannot. Second, no I have not read those. In my younger days I read A Treatise on Money by Keynes, and its opposite, Capitalism and Freedom by Friedman. There are easier reads like Freakonomics, and Naked Economics. And of course of Wealth of Nations... all of these informed my opinions, supplemented now by officially 20 years in financial services as of this year. The reading today is mostly in periodicals since great finance books aren't produced monthly.

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

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.

I didn't say one trumped the other. These are two different discussion points. I'm with you on the environment, but I don't feel like I have to make a choice between the two. There is nothing that Stein could accomplish in a representative government that Clinton cannot. Second, no I have not read those. In my younger days I read A Treatise on Money by Keynes, and its opposite, Capitalism and Freedom by Friedman. There are easier reads like Freakonomics, and Naked Economics. And of course of Wealth of Nations... all of these informed my opinions, supplemented now by officially 20 years in financial services as of this year. The reading today is mostly in periodicals since great finance books aren't produced monthly.

Freakonomics and (of course) Wealth of Nations are classic econ books. I'm fairly familiar with them (mostly skimmed but pure econ book for me are like self hel books- give me this synopsis, please!)

But back on topic, my issue with Hillary is that she is NOT well focused on understanding limits to resources and the basic laws of ecology. Sure, she id better than Trump but when you need to go 500 miles to get to a safe island and Trump will only get you 200 miles there Hillary might get you 300 miles there, you still fall way short and drowned. Hillary falls too short.

Stein will not be elected, we know that, but by supporting her, what we can do is help people understand that we are all environmental type people. Unless we are a machine, we are indelibly bound to the environment for our survival (and all other life is the same). We are a species headed for extinction. Science tells us this. If we don't make our survival the focus, what is the point of voting for one candidate or the other when both fall way too short. I wish people could understand this (or at least be willing to try). Living in a suicidal culture is massively frustrating!

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.

Brian, I love ya, but I have to agree that your thinking here seems a bit arrogant and presumptive.

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul 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.

Brian, I love ya, but I have to agree that your thinking here seems a bit arrogant and presumptive.

I certainly don't mean it to be but I can see why you would say that. I'm very self-critical about certain things, I'm no saint, and sometimes I'm an asshole. And my shit stinks!

I don't know how else to word it though. I really do believe most Americans prefer what they are accustomed to rather than seek a better solution. I also believe a huge number of Americans are apathetic. And I believe many are fearful and thus our system is static. And I've been all of those things myself and being stuck in a rut, apathetic or fearful gains nothing, believe me! But that's why most people will vote for Hillary even though they don't trust or like her.

But I feel like you're dismissing a very important factor that most of these Americans that you're referring to aren't dismissing: Change does not happen overnight, and Stein and Johnson could no more create positive change than Hillary could right now. Add that to the myriad of other reasons they may choose to vote for Hillary (some good, some not so good, including not wanting to split the vote), and people have a perfectly good reason not to vote for Stein or Johnson, and aren't doing it because they are mired in the status quo at all. Plus, I think you are underestimating the intellects of those who will vote for Hillary. You are actually saying that Trump supporters have got it right, since Trump supporters are voting for him because they think he can really create change. They think that one person can just walk into office and immediately create change just like you apparently think Stein could. In fact, just voting in a POTUS who claims to be able to change America for the better is probably the least effective way to change anything one can imagine. The one person who's got it just right in this context is Bernie Sanders. If you really want positive change, you should listen more to him instead of to someone who wants to advance her political career because she's seen an opening. Bernie knows where it's at.

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul 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.

Brian, I love ya, but I have to agree that your thinking here seems a bit arrogant and presumptive.

I certainly don't mean it to be but I can see why you would say that. I'm very self-critical about certain things, I'm no saint, and sometimes I'm an asshole. And my shit stinks!

I don't know how else to word it though. I really do believe most Americans prefer what they are accustomed to rather than seek a better solution. I also believe a huge number of Americans are apathetic. And I believe many are fearful and thus our system is static. And I've been all of those things myself and being stuck in a rut, apathetic or fearful gains nothing, believe me! But that's why most people will vote for Hillary even though they don't trust or like her.

But I feel like you're dismissing a very important factor that most of these Americans that you're referring to aren't dismissing: Change does not happen overnight, and Stein and Johnson could no more create positive change than Hillary could right now. Add that to the myriad of other reasons they may choose to vote for Hillary (some good, some not so good, including not wanting to split the vote), and people have a perfectly good reason not to vote for Stein or Johnson, and aren't doing it because they are mired in the status quo at all. Plus, I think you are underestimating the intellects of those who will vote for Hillary. You are actually saying that Trump supporters have got it right, since Trump supporters are voting for him because they think he can really create change. They think that one person can just walk into office and immediately create change just like you apparently think Stein could. In fact, just voting in a POTUS who claims to be able to change America for the better is probably the least effective way to change anything one can imagine. The one person who's got it just right in this context is Bernie Sanders. If you really want positive change, you should listen more to him instead of to someone who wants to advance her political career because she's seen an opening. Bernie knows where it's at.

That's absolutely correct. The first thing I was told in the first hour of the first class I took on my way to my degree and teaching credential was this: "Most of you here are going into teaching because you want to change the world, you want to make a difference. But you would do well to know this: institutions are static. They are very slow to change."

I get that and I'm not saying some of us should be a fly in the ointment simply for the sake of being agitators or simply different. That's not how I see Bernie or Stein. I believe they (and particularly Stein because she knows she is farther even than Berni on the outside) know change is slow and their job is to be a catalyst for change that is well though out and logical. Because change is slow, a good catalyst for that kind of change is essential.

And oh how I want to continue here but I have to run. More later. Thanks as always for good challenging thoughts, PJ_Soul! Do keep me on my toes!

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

the economy and all its metrics is the biggest fraud out there ... everything is based on "growth" ... the sky is falling if we don't have growth ... we have corporations that make decisions based on shareholder or stock value ... the concept of sustainability is lost on everyone ... and I'm not even just talking about the environment ... the antiquated conditions by which decisions are made do not translate as an indicator of the "health" of a nation ...

how someone can use the unemployment rate as a measure of how "great" everything is just shows how irrational the thinking is ... those stats are manipulated into making people feel like everything is ok ... when everything points to utter failure ...

To Benjs's point, unemployment is not the only factor, but it is a key KPI for sure. What else would you use? I'm fairly certain you can come up with precious few that aren't being evaluated already today. If you can, well then you ought to head right over to the Fed or CBO and get a job.

let's go back to my farm example ... say you lived on a farm with a commune of people ... and that farm had to sustain you and everyone else in perpetuity ... what metrics would you use? ... YOY growth!? ... maximum yield? ... that wouldn't make any sense ...

tonifig8 said:

It's just extreme carelessness

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fallout-over-clintons-fox-news-225354430.html

won't really move the needle ... the majority of people are not voting for things like honesty and trustworthiness ...