US Presidential Election XII - Page 63 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-08-2016, 01:28 PM   #931
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,053
Local Time: 06:48 PM
People also forget that this wasn't so long ago...Yale became coed in 1969 (!!) and Hillary started law school the next year from what I remember. We often thing of women's lack of access as something that happened 100 years ago, but this isn't even a generation removed.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-08-2016, 01:43 PM   #932
New Yorker
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,113
Local Time: 10:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

Sounds like because of her taking a job, more young men went to die in the war.....

I don't blame her at all for having walls up. I can't imagine how jaded and untrustworthy of the world I would be in her shoes


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
BEAL is online now  
Old 09-08-2016, 02:17 PM   #933
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 11,636
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I'm watching a Gary Johnson interview.

1. He says he draws more votes from Hillary
2. He didn't know what Aleppo was

Nope! This is why we can't have third parties.

He says that because there's tons of republicans who refuse to vote for him because they see it as a vote for Clinton. I'm sure his camp has done the research and said we need to dispel the idea that libertarians take only from republicans, in order to gather more republicans.

On the Aleppo question, I don't know whether he truly didn't know what it was, or if he was caught off by the odd way the guy said "a leppo." I give him the benefit, because I didn't just run a two question check on his intelligence and I know he's not an idiot.

I fail to see that "this" is "why we can't have third parties." You make it seem like we can't be part of the rest of the western world because of one fumble. If that's the case, we all know we have an arsenal of Trump fumbles. Why should we even have two parties? Might as well just have a one party system where we re-elect the same dear leader.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 09-08-2016, 02:20 PM   #934
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
gump's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,725
Local Time: 06:48 PM
And make no mistake, even Obama benefitted from the gender bias when he was debating Hilary. Remember the "you're likeable enough" comment.
__________________
gump is offline  
Old 09-08-2016, 02:21 PM   #935
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 11,636
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
This forum is a dreadful place for those who want to criticize Clinton because the ones doing the criticizing are so batshit.

And when not-batshit-crazy criticisms get posted, they get driven into the ground by the usual critics.

Or, you get sorted into a bucket, Bernie bro.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 09-08-2016, 03:11 PM   #936
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 05:48 PM
Gary Johnson got Aleppo confused with...
Click image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByU2 Interference1473365504.680128.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	30.2 KB
ID:	10873


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 09-08-2016, 03:24 PM   #937
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,845
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewson View Post
Hillary tended to not answer any of the questions from the audience directly instead choosing to filibuster. At least Trump answered a few of the questions directly and succinctly, especially the one regards to an undocumented alien and military service.

Both came across poorly overall, but she came across worse (though Lauer may have come across poorest of all).
__________________
Bluer White is online now  
Old 09-08-2016, 04:17 PM   #938
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,449
Local Time: 03:48 PM
http://www.fox7austin.com/news/local...03317457-story
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-08-2016, 04:55 PM   #939
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,720
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I've been looking for a reason to post this for ages. A long read, but a very good one.

Understanding Hillary: The Clinton America sees isn’t the Clinton colleagues know. Why are they so different?

It begins:

Quote:
This is not a profile of Hillary Clinton. It is not a review of her career or an assessment of her campaign. You won’t find any shocking revelations on her emails, on Benghazi, on Whitewater, or even on her health care plan.

This is an effort to answer a question I’ve been struggling with since at least 2008: Why is the Hillary Clinton described to me by her staff, her colleagues, and even her foes so different from the one I see on the campaign trail?

I’ve come to call it “the Gap.” There is the Hillary Clinton I watch on the nightly news and that I read described in the press. She is careful, calculated, cautious. Her speeches can sound like executive summaries from a committee report, the product of too many authors, too many voices, and too much fear of offense.

The Iraq War mars her record, and the private email server and the Goldman Sachs paydays frustrate even her admirers. Polls show most Americans doubt her basic honesty. Pundits write columns with headlines like “Why Is Clinton Disliked?”

And then there is the Hillary Clinton described to me by people who have worked with her, people I admire, people who understand Washington in ways I never will. Their Hillary Clinton is spoken of in superlatives: brilliant, funny, thoughtful, effective. She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff, and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.

...
Eta - just realized I may have originally seen this article posted here, months ago. It's worth another post, in case it was missed the first time.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 09-08-2016, 05:16 PM   #940
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,196
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
He says that because there's tons of republicans who refuse to vote for him because they see it as a vote for Clinton. I'm sure his camp has done the research and said we need to dispel the idea that libertarians take only from republicans, in order to gather more republicans.

On the Aleppo question, I don't know whether he truly didn't know what it was, or if he was caught off by the odd way the guy said "a leppo." I give him the benefit, because I didn't just run a two question check on his intelligence and I know he's not an idiot.

I fail to see that "this" is "why we can't have third parties." You make it seem like we can't be part of the rest of the western world because of one fumble. If that's the case, we all know we have an arsenal of Trump fumbles. Why should we even have two parties? Might as well just have a one party system where we re-elect the same dear leader.


well, my comment was meant to be slightly humorous, but if you like, one could argue that the two party system gives a necessary coherence and stability to a massive, multicultural population spread out over an entire continent with vast geographic and cultural differences. not to mention that 150 years ago the country was consumed by a near catastrophic civil war. these two parties also seem to be able to assimilate the issues and concerns presented by smaller parties (i.e., the Tea Party being absorbed by the GOP, though now at apparent great cost), so real changes in platform and positions can and do happen.

there's also the issue that there hasn't ever been a remotely credible third party candidate (Perot is the gold standard here), nor do third parties bother to do much beyond run for president. it seems that many those attracted to third parties -- aside from those who might be at present unhappy with their party's nominee, but have a long history of voting for the two parties -- like to complain about not having a choice but then do little to actually create a viable alternative choice, and then turn around and not vote and blame the system. it's difficult to run for state and local offices, but that's the kind of groundwork required to create a political party.

Johnson may not be an idiot, and he may have had a brain malfunction (all that THC!) but running for the presidency does require one to have a basic minimum knowledge of current events. given that Aleppo has been gassed with chlorine and this was headlines yesterday, one would think that it would have rung a bell.

Reports of a Chlorine-Gas Attack in Aleppo - The Atlantic

i watched this as it happened, and it was in no way a gotcha question. and it was far more basic than, say, someone quizzing GWB about the name of the prime minister of Pakistan (something he also should have known, btw).

Johnson seems to encapsulate the problem with third parties -- it's difficult to take them seriously, because they don't seem to be serious about actual policy.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-08-2016, 05:53 PM   #941
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 11,636
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
well, my comment was meant to be slightly humorous, but if you like, one could argue that the two party system gives a necessary coherence and stability to a massive, multicultural population spread out over an entire continent with vast geographic and cultural differences. not to mention that 150 years ago the country was consumed by a near catastrophic civil war. these two parties also seem to be able to assimilate the issues and concerns presented by smaller parties (i.e., the Tea Party being absorbed by the GOP, though now at apparent great cost), so real changes in platform and positions can and do happen.



there's also the issue that there hasn't ever been a remotely credible third party candidate (Perot is the gold standard here), nor do third parties bother to do much beyond run for president. it seems that many those attracted to third parties -- aside from those who might be at present unhappy with their party's nominee, but have a long history of voting for the two parties -- like to complain about not having a choice but then do little to actually create a viable alternative choice, and then turn around and not vote and blame the system. it's difficult to run for state and local offices, but that's the kind of groundwork required to create a political party.



Johnson may not be an idiot, and he may have had a brain malfunction (all that THC!) but running for the presidency does require one to have a basic minimum knowledge of current events. given that Aleppo has been gassed with chlorine and this was headlines yesterday, one would think that it would have rung a bell.



Reports of a Chlorine-Gas Attack in Aleppo - The Atlantic



i watched this as it happened, and it was in no way a gotcha question. and it was far more basic than, say, someone quizzing GWB about the name of the prime minister of Pakistan (something he also should have known, btw).



Johnson seems to encapsulate the problem with third parties -- it's difficult to take them seriously, because they don't seem to be serious about actual policy.

I'm failing to understand your first point, as it seems quite opposite of the logical answer. Why would limiting two choices work to the advantage of a large, diverse population? It seems to me that it's the diversity that gets washed in such a state. If you have a belief that isn't sortable into the two really large, generalized boxes, it doesn't matter. Not only will your belief not make it into those large boxes, but it will never be even given adequate representation based upon the proportion of people who share that belief.

You're illegitimizing third party candidates by merely disregarding them. You call Ross Perot the gold standard, yet you don't acknowledge practically everyone else who ever ran and never achieved the same level of popular vote. Ross Perot isn't the "gold standard" of third party candidates, as they're often diverse and come from plenty of different backgrounds. Some are illegitimate, and some are not. You're just disregarding them and smacking a bit "third party" label on them. That's not the solution to third party candidates, it's the problem. You fail to take them seriously, because they're not a major party. And ultimately, they fail to become major players, due to your illegitimization.

This is even evident in your response here. You shrug him off as a pothead. Did you happen to read Johnson's actual reflection and response to his brain fart on Aleppo? About him owning up to his mistake and being frustrated and upset with himself? About him viewing Syria as a serious humanitarian problem? God forbid we have that in politics. Actual honesty, not honesty as a facade.

As a final note, I think it comes off rather ignorant to suggest that all third party candidates do is run for president. I'm assuming you've voted before... these third parties are actual parties with local chapters set up across the country. People run for office, and much like on the national scale with being disregarded, they're disregarded on those smaller ballots as well. Because there is no current system in place filled with money or known voices to endorse their campaign. Funny thing about that is, having a D or R next to your name is the sole reason you might be elected into a state congress, and then you work your way up from there.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 09-08-2016, 05:55 PM   #942
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 80,874
Local Time: 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I know Assagne comes off all sexy like some sort of vigilante force for truth, but he's a bullshit artist.
Seriously, I get the call for transparency. But Assagne is just an ego-tripping asshole.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
That is REALLY depressing to me as someone who quit working in a field I loved because male coworkers wouldn't take me seriously.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 09-08-2016, 05:58 PM   #943
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pushing my wheel of love.
Posts: 9,158
Local Time: 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
there's also the issue that there hasn't ever been a remotely credible third party candidate
Teddy Roosevelt?
__________________
iron yuppie is online now  
Old 09-08-2016, 07:12 PM   #944
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 54,149
Local Time: 06:48 PM
We can have a third party candidate. We just can't have these third party candidates.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 09-08-2016, 08:27 PM   #945
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,056
Local Time: 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
Yes, accurate. I don't see much worth in regards to discussion re: Clinton on this board.
Criticize away if you've got concerns about her you want to share. I've shared a few of mine in here before and nobody's jumped on me about it.

My main point is that I just can't take Trump supporters seriously when they call her untrustworthy and try and call her out on any shady/reckless stuff she's done, because, well, look at who they're supporting.

And in regards to Assange and others of his ilk who claim to have all this information about her, at this point my feeling is basically, "Put up or shut up". If they have legit information that we deserve to know about her, something serious that we should be alerted to, fine. Then they need to just share it already. Especially if it's something truly damaging, something that proves she poses a serious risk to this country at large if she gets elected.

But if they really don't have anything that's any worse than what we've heard thus far, then they need to put a sock in it and let us focus on the issues that already exist with her. And we need to come to some sort of resolution on the e-mail issue and the foundation stuff and whatnot, too. If she's committed a criminal offense, then let's do something about that and punish her accordingly. If she hasn't, then people (and I'm speaking about the media and voters in general across the country and whatnot here) need to just drop it already and move on.
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com