Election Stress Disorder

brianlux · October 2016

Free said:

show previous quotes
brianlux said:
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!

brianlux · October 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes
brianlux said:
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.

rgambs · October 2016

brianlux said:

show previous quotes
HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:
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!

Jason P · October 2016

brianlux said:

show previous quotes
Free said:

brianlux said:
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?

brianlux · October 2016

rgambs said:

show previous quotes
brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:
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?

brianlux · October 2016

Jason P said:

show previous quotes
brianlux said:

Free said:

brianlux said:
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!

Free · October 2016

brianlux said:

show previous quotes
HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:
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.

brianlux · October 2016

Free said:

show previous quotes
brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:
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!

PJ_Soul · October 2016

If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.

HughFreakingDillon · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:
If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.

I wonder if Hillary sits up thinking "the race is close with a douche like this? people must really despise me".

PJ_Soul · October 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes
PJ_Soul said:
If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.
I wonder if Hillary sits up thinking "the race is close with a douche like this? people must really despise me".

I'm not sure whether or not her ego would allow such a thought to occur to her.

HughFreakingDillon · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:

show previous quotes
HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:
If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.
I wonder if Hillary sits up thinking "the race is close with a douche like this? people must really despise me".
I'm not sure whether or not her ego would allow such a thought to occur to her.

yeah, she's probably stuck in a bubble of yes-folks. as most people at that level would be.

Free · October 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes
PJ_Soul said:
If this whole sexual assault thing hadn't come up I think him winning would have been entirely possible.
I wonder if Hillary sits up thinking "the race is close with a douche like this? people must really despise me".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SSjgIX-v93g

That's right, nobody should be fooled by Hillary

Free · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:
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.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

Free said:

show previous quotes
PJ_Soul said:
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.

brianlux · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:

show previous quotes
Free said:

PJ_Soul said:
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.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

brianlux said:

show previous quotes
PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJ_Soul said:
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.

Free · October 2016

brianlux said:

show previous quotes
PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJ_Soul said:
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.

Exactly.

lukin2006 · October 2016

brianlux said:

show previous quotes
PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJ_Soul said:
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?

PJ_Soul · October 2016

lukin2006 said:

show previous quotes
brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Free said:

PJ_Soul said:
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.

Election Stress Disorder

Comments

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories