Hillary won more votes for President

Free said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HtcO8ujQ5ig

She "feels sorry for stupid young people..." 1:10 mark

Wtf are you talking about? Did you watch the video?

Did I miss hearing and seeing the word "stupid" in that sentence? Was that word just invented?

PJ_Soul is on our side (the side of logic)! This was Free's post originally!

We all are on the same side if we are not 1%ers, (and no one here is) so this little competitive dig and piggy-backing just adds to the divisiveness and pettiness. Nice.

Bentleyspop said:

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

Free said:

3rd Party, Russell. She probably won't win the Millenial vote so what are you going to do? Yell some more at Hillary's non-supporters? Do you think that will get them to vote for her?

Do you think yelling some more at Hillary supporters is going to change the outcome of the election?

Free said:

Polls.

But since some here love to follow them and believe in them, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-will-millennials-start-liking-hillary-clinton/2016/09/22/4f2e0de8-80fb-11e6-a52d-9a865a0ed0d4_story.html?utm_term=.96350723df3a

See the article for details, This part especially entertaining.

...Clinton campaign explicitly advertised these events as an appeal to prodigal young voters.

The surrogate speeches haven’t always gone according to plan, though. Obama’s speech at George Mason University was at one point met with chants of “four more years”; her stumping apparently got the crowd pumped for the wrong politician.

George Mason University is a five minute drive from my house (the traffic on my drive home the day of Obama's visit was a nightmare).

I know for a fact that the Democratic Party is registering voters like crazy there, and has a very active Clinton apparatus on campus. Nice headline for a day, but we are not worried about the millenials at GMU.

Ah yes, the Patriot Center. I saw the Pumpkins there (bad) and Mumford (not bad). Didn't know you were in Fairfax.

benjs said:

Free said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HtcO8ujQ5ig

She "feels sorry for stupid young people..." 1:10 mark

Wtf are you talking about? Did you watch the video?

Did I miss hearing and seeing the word "stupid" in that sentence? Was that word just invented?

PJ_Soul is on our side (the side of logic)! This was Free's post originally!

We all are on the same side if we are not 1%ers, (and no one here is) so this little competitive dig and piggy-backing just adds to the divisiveness and pettiness. Nice.

You're right, that was petty of me. That said, it's frustrating that I debunk statements in the article you linked, and you repeat those exact statements (quite arrogantly) as though they are "Fact: ...". I'm sorry, but it's hard to claim a statement is factual when someone refutes it, and your retort is to repeat said statement without addressing the rebuttal nor adding anything to the original statement. I still say that almost every single statement in that article is either absurdly hyperbolic (when if statements were made without embellishments, they truly would not offend many/any), or lacking context to the point where the meaning was different than stated, or simply incorrectly paraphrased in ways that change the meaning. This is unprofessional and disingenuous.

Edit: If you address my objections reasonably and rationally, then we'll be effectively engaging in debate, which is what I love about this place. I hope we can get there, Free. I've been exposed to plenty by you, and look forward to learning more.

PJ_Soul said:

benjs said:

Free said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HtcO8ujQ5ig

She "feels sorry for stupid young people..." 1:10 mark

Wtf are you talking about? Did you watch the video?

Did I miss hearing and seeing the word "stupid" in that sentence? Was that word just invented?

PJ_Soul is on our side (the side of logic)! This was Free's post originally!

We all are on the same side if we are not 1%ers, (and no one here is) so this little competitive dig and piggy-backing just adds to the divisiveness and pettiness. Nice.

You're right, that was petty of me. That said, it's frustrating that I debunk statements in the article you linked, and you repeat those exact statements (quite arrogantly) as though they are "Fact: ...". I'm sorry, but it's hard to claim a statement is factual when someone refutes it, and your retort is to repeat said statement without addressing the rebuttal nor adding anything to the original statement. I still say that almost every single statement in that article is either absurdly hyperbolic (when if statements were made without embellishments, they truly would not offend many/any), or lacking context to the point where the meaning was different than stated, or simply incorrectly paraphrased in ways that change the meaning. This is unprofessional and disingenuous.

Edit: If you address my objections reasonably and rationally, then we'll be effectively engaging in debate, which is what I love about this place. I hope we can get there, Free. I've been exposed to plenty by you, and look forward to learning more.

Well, let's not ignore that Free seems to now just be making shit up, and then when someone says something about it he just pretends it never happened.

tonifig8 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html?hpw&rref=opinion&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

Dude, you seem to be in love with a politician. She could do no wrong in your eyes.

For all those out there who practice common sense, know that, in most economic practice, she was on the same side as the republicans. Big money was involved, how hard is it to negotiate when you're both negotiating for wall st/special interest. Now I'm not saying she hasn't been through a lot or that she hasn't achieved success, but your assessment there is a little biased and bit exaggerated

mrussel1 said:

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

ledvedderman said:

I'm absolutely baffled by the last couple pages of this thread. It's spun into complete stupidity.

I am baffled that anyone would vote for her.

I am baffled that anyone would vote for Ron Paul.

Gruber voters usually are.

Well he did earn .03% of the vote in '08 and .02% in 2012, so I guess you guys are just the Mensa members of the electorate.

tonifig8 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tonifig8 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html?hpw&rref=opinion&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

Dude, you seem to be in love with a politician. She could do no wrong in your eyes.

For all those out there who practice common sense, know that, in most economic practice, she was on the same side as the republicans. Big money was involved, how hard is it to negotiate when you're both negotiating for wall st/special interest. Now I'm not saying she hasn't been through a lot or that she hasn't achieved success, but your assessment there is a little biased and bit exaggerated

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I think Hillary is a better candidate than Trump. And the first paragraph of my post was taken from the NYT editorial that endorsed her, hence the link and not passing the words off as my own.

Ah my bad. I didn't read the article and I didn't see quotes on your post. I think Clinton is a better politician than Trump, but then again trump isn't a politician.

To answer russ. I think she's a very intelligent individual. Certainly much smarter than the average politician. I think she's courageous for taking on all these larger than life people. I think she's courageous for taking on some big social issues. There's a lot of other details that I admire regarding her career, there's also many personal accomplishments that I admire.

I just think she's made several mistakes, some terrible choices, and hasn't been consistent in all the right ways. If she would have beat Obama I would have probably voted for Her. Life is about progress and learning, and I've learned so much in the last 8yrs. So there is zero chance I would vote for her. Seems fair enough, right?