|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 25 2016 03:12 farvacola wrote:
Uhh, what? The two parties will not cease to exist....
That is not what I said, try again.
|
On June 25 2016 03:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Trump isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Trump and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Trump" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Trump will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its great that you ended that with, “not to be a jerk,” because that really shows you were committed to it. And your candidate is a curmudgeonly old man who only stayed in office because he was voted in by a tiny state of liberals that are happy to vote in someone who doesn’t accomplish anything in the senate worth writing home about. So yeah, your boy didn’t impress me in the least when it comes to getting things done. Because after this election the moderate democrats and Republican party will still exist, no matter much wishing Bernie did. So yeah, I voted for the person I was giving me way less lip service.
I'm no going to argue that stuff, my point was based off of your comment about your brother and campaign finance, you picked the wrong candidate. If those were lower on your list than someone's perceived curmudgenosity, than fine. I also presume when you're comparing accomplishments you're not gobbling this nonsense up.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/seven-hillary-clintons-biggest-accomplishments/
|
On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Drumpf isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly.
yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Drumpf.
At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat.
You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances.
Hillary and her supporters may blame you if things go south, but that doesnt matter. You should blame yourself.
|
On June 25 2016 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:06 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Trump isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Trump and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Trump" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Trump will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its great that you ended that with, “not to be a jerk,” because that really shows you were committed to it. And your candidate is a curmudgeonly old man who only stayed in office because he was voted in by a tiny state of liberals that are happy to vote in someone who doesn’t accomplish anything in the senate worth writing home about. So yeah, your boy didn’t impress me in the least when it comes to getting things done. Because after this election the moderate democrats and Republican party will still exist, no matter much wishing Bernie did. So yeah, I voted for the person I was giving me way less lip service. I'm no going to argue that stuff, my point was based off of your comment about your brother and campaign finance, you picked the wrong candidate. If those were lower on your list than someone's perceived curmudgenosity, than fine. I also presume when you're comparing accomplishments you're not gobbling this nonsense up. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/seven-hillary-clintons-biggest-accomplishments/
I don't believe Bernie could accomplish any reforms on campaign finance if elected. I have looked at his voting record, it did not impress me for the amount of time he was in office.
|
On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Drumpf isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Trump. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances.
The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Trump", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great.
On June 25 2016 03:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:06 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Trump isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Trump and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Trump" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Trump will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its great that you ended that with, “not to be a jerk,” because that really shows you were committed to it. And your candidate is a curmudgeonly old man who only stayed in office because he was voted in by a tiny state of liberals that are happy to vote in someone who doesn’t accomplish anything in the senate worth writing home about. So yeah, your boy didn’t impress me in the least when it comes to getting things done. Because after this election the moderate democrats and Republican party will still exist, no matter much wishing Bernie did. So yeah, I voted for the person I was giving me way less lip service. I'm no going to argue that stuff, my point was based off of your comment about your brother and campaign finance, you picked the wrong candidate. If those were lower on your list than someone's perceived curmudgenosity, than fine. I also presume when you're comparing accomplishments you're not gobbling this nonsense up. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/seven-hillary-clintons-biggest-accomplishments/ I don't believe Bernie could accomplish any reforms on campaign finance if elected. I have looked at his voting record, it did not impress me for the amount of time he was in office.
What accomplishments from Hillary gives you the impression she would have been any better? In what way/for what reasons do you think Hillary less likely to send your brother to a warzone than Bernie?
|
On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Drumpf isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Drumpf. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Drumpf", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great.
Im sorry, what were the other option's again? For my benefit, if you will please
|
Vote for Ralph Nader....erm, I mean Jill Stein.
|
On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Drumpf isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Trump. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances.
This is so pretentious to presume he is wrong for his choice of who to vote for or not vote for and that it's up to you to down-talk him like it's your 'burden' to get his head out of his ass.
Then again you are viewing it from a simplistic 'black/white good vs bad' perspective. I don't agree with Green or Sanders but he's talking policies and facts here and you're just patronizing him with your opinions.
|
On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Drumpf isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Trump. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Trump", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great.
You live in a Disney fantasy land. Yes, those are the only two options with a remotely viable percent chance of being elected. Nothing else is serious. Sure, it is possible I'll win the lottery every day this week. But that's not even worth putting thought into. You waste your time with these romantic notions of revolution. Bernie isn't MLK. His campaign isn't the civil rights movement.
On June 25 2016 03:22 farvacola wrote:
Vote for Ralph Nader....erm, I mean Jill Stein.
Yeah, the only candidate who refuses to deny the effectiveness of holistic medicine.
|
On June 25 2016 03:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Drumpf isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Trump. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Trump", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great. You live in a Disney fantasy land. Yes, those are the only two options with a remotely viable percent chance of being elected. Nothing else is serious. Sure, it is possible I'll win the lottery every day this week. But that's not even worth putting thought into. You waste your time with these romantic notions of revolution. Bernie isn't MLK. His campaign isn't the civil rights movement. Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:22 farvacola wrote:
Vote for Ralph Nader....erm, I mean Jill Stein. Yeah, the only candidate who refuses to deny the effectiveness of holistic medicine.
This is a joke. You vote for who you want to represent you in office. If that isn't one of the two major parties then so be it.
Quit advocating party politics.
|
On June 25 2016 03:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Drumpf isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Drumpf. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. This is so pretentious to presume he is wrong for his choice of who to vote for or not vote for and that it's up to you to down-talk him like it's your 'burden' to get his head out of his ass. Then again you are viewing it from a simplistic 'black/white good vs bad' perspective. I don't agree with Green or Sanders but he's talking policies and facts here and you're just patronizing him with your opinions.
This is somewhat specific to his case not just generally. So yes there is a pretty black and white situation. Unless you can get him to agree that Drumpf is something he wants.
The way things work out for him specifically considering his positions
He is faced with the choice to get his head chopped, a finger chopped off or he can flip a coin and either get his finger chopped of or his head. He is choosing option 3.
Obviously the example is exaggerated. But thats basically it. Choose bad case, choose worst case or let things be and deal with whatever happens.
Edit: Also Im not the only one telling people how they should have voted out of thin air. I brought up because it was brought up by him.
Beyond that whatever your views vote how you want. I dont care.
On June 25 2016 03:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:25 Mohdoo wrote:On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Drumpf isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Drumpf. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Drumpf", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great. You live in a Disney fantasy land. Yes, those are the only two options with a remotely viable percent chance of being elected. Nothing else is serious. Sure, it is possible I'll win the lottery every day this week. But that's not even worth putting thought into. You waste your time with these romantic notions of revolution. Bernie isn't MLK. His campaign isn't the civil rights movement. On June 25 2016 03:22 farvacola wrote:
Vote for Ralph Nader....erm, I mean Jill Stein. Yeah, the only candidate who refuses to deny the effectiveness of holistic medicine. This is a joke. You vote for who you want to represent you in office. If that isn't one of the two major parties then so be it. Quit advocating party politics.
Canadians did not do this btw, the voted to make sure someone they "didnt want in office" win, so its not like some fantasy idea. And it worked out pretty well so far.
|
This debate has already happened with GH and I don't really see a need to have it again. He is entitled to his opinion. But that being said, I would like it if he kept his smug opinion on other peoples voting choices to himself in the future. Or maybe just my voting choice, since we have had this debate already.
|
On June 25 2016 03:22 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Drumpf isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Drumpf. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Drumpf", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great. Im sorry, what were the other option's again? For my benefit, if you will please
Support candidates I agree with more than Hillary. That everyone else thinks you have to vote for a Dem or Rep is a problem that doesn't get fixed by perpetuating it. Nader isn't the reason Gore lost (not sure if that myth is still alive here).
Gore was calling for paying down the debt with the social security fund, cutting taxes, and increasing military spending. All things that have all but vanished from the Democratic platform. Acting like supporting someone who doesn't win is "doing nothing" is preposterous.
On June 25 2016 03:29 Plansix wrote:
This debate has already happened with GH and I don't really see a need to have it again. He is entitled to his opinion. But that being said, I would like it if he kept his smug opinion on other peoples voting choices to himself in the future. Or maybe just my voting choice, since we have had this debate already.
You said you wanted to hear more on campaign finance reform and you didn't like your brother going to war, I told you that you picked the wrong candidate if you wanted to change those things. You can refute that premise, or not. Looks like you've chosen not to. No need to whine about it.
|
On June 25 2016 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:22 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Drumpf isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Drumpf. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Drumpf", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great. Im sorry, what were the other option's again? For my benefit, if you will please Support candidates I agree with more than Hillary. That everyone else thinks you have to vote for a Dem or Rep is a problem that doesn't get fixed by perpetuating it. Nader isn't the reason Gore lost (not sure if that myth is still alive here). Gore was calling for paying down the debt with the social security fund, cutting taxes, and increasing military spending. All things that have all but vanished from the Democratic platform. Acting like supporting someone who doesn't win is "doing nothing" is preposterous.
Ok so option 3 then, thank you. Good luck.
|
On June 25 2016 03:28 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:25 Mohdoo wrote:On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2016 23:35 Plansix wrote:
Doubtful. All this brings is instability and that does not play in to the general electorate. Nationalism and global trade work as a talking point, but watching the ramifications of those policies unfold won’t sell the general electorate on them. Drumpf isn’t trying to win the anti-establishment vote anymore, he has all he can get. Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Trump. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Trump", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great. You live in a Disney fantasy land. Yes, those are the only two options with a remotely viable percent chance of being elected. Nothing else is serious. Sure, it is possible I'll win the lottery every day this week. But that's not even worth putting thought into. You waste your time with these romantic notions of revolution. Bernie isn't MLK. His campaign isn't the civil rights movement. On June 25 2016 03:22 farvacola wrote:
Vote for Ralph Nader....erm, I mean Jill Stein. Yeah, the only candidate who refuses to deny the effectiveness of holistic medicine. This is a joke. You vote for who you want to represent you in office. If that isn't one of the two major parties then so be it. Quit advocating party politics.
If that is the case, i would probably vote gary johnson. However, i think it is a fantasy, as i know gary johnson has no shot at winning, and i do not want hillary as president. I'm going to pick the vote that counts.
|
On June 25 2016 03:41 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:22 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 23:50 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, I agree that Hillary is the most probable outcome, and it's not like Drumpf and the Republicans are not without issues of their own. My point is that this "omfg must vote against Drumpf" line of argument is getting tiresome, and Hillary would do better to make the case for herself than simply hope that anti-Drumpf will carry the day. Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation. But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton. You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Drumpf. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Drumpf", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great. Im sorry, what were the other option's again? For my benefit, if you will please Support candidates I agree with more than Hillary. That everyone else thinks you have to vote for a Dem or Rep is a problem that doesn't get fixed by perpetuating it. Nader isn't the reason Gore lost (not sure if that myth is still alive here). Gore was calling for paying down the debt with the social security fund, cutting taxes, and increasing military spending. All things that have all but vanished from the Democratic platform. Acting like supporting someone who doesn't win is "doing nothing" is preposterous. Ok so option 3 then, thank you. Good luck.
I'm not stopping people from realizing they don't have to support Hillary to prevent Trump from winning. That's a choice they make. If Democrats rallied behind Bernie he'd win in a landslide, I tried to get people to see that, and that millions wont support Clinton (rightly or not) so if she loses it's on her, not on people who actually voted for someone/something they believe in instead of being held hostage by the parties.
I honestly can't believe left leaning folks are making the argument that you have to support the party's pick while simultaneously saying the right should stand up for their principles and not support their party's pick. It's laughable.
|
On June 25 2016 03:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I think both parties will have ceased to exist as we know it after this election. It's been a real game-changer for both of them.
I disagree; while the Republican party may change considerably as it realigns its base, platform, and goals somewhat; the Democrats always had a progressive wing, and Sanders views really aren't that different from say Warren's; so I think the Dems won't change that much.
on voting: I say just let people vote as they deem best; there's plenty of reasonable arguments to support all sorts of votes.
|
On June 25 2016 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:41 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:22 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation.
But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton.
You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Drumpf. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Drumpf", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great. Im sorry, what were the other option's again? For my benefit, if you will please Support candidates I agree with more than Hillary. That everyone else thinks you have to vote for a Dem or Rep is a problem that doesn't get fixed by perpetuating it. Nader isn't the reason Gore lost (not sure if that myth is still alive here). Gore was calling for paying down the debt with the social security fund, cutting taxes, and increasing military spending. All things that have all but vanished from the Democratic platform. Acting like supporting someone who doesn't win is "doing nothing" is preposterous. Ok so option 3 then, thank you. Good luck. I'm not stopping people from realizing they don't have to support Hillary to prevent Trump from winning. That's a choice they make. If Democrats rallied behind Bernie he'd win in a landslide, I tried to get people to see that, and that millions wont support Clinton (rightly or not) so if she loses it's on her, not on people who actually voted for someone/something they believe in instead of being held hostage by the parties. I honestly can't believe left leaning folks are making the argument that you have to support the party's pick while simultaneously saying the right should stand up for their principles and not support their party's pick. It's laughable.
How many times do you intend to make this exact same post? Do you need us to quote the other times you've said this so that you can understand we heard you? What can we do to make you feel like we are listening to you?
|
On June 25 2016 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:41 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:22 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Drumpf. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Drumpf", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great. Im sorry, what were the other option's again? For my benefit, if you will please Support candidates I agree with more than Hillary. That everyone else thinks you have to vote for a Dem or Rep is a problem that doesn't get fixed by perpetuating it. Nader isn't the reason Gore lost (not sure if that myth is still alive here). Gore was calling for paying down the debt with the social security fund, cutting taxes, and increasing military spending. All things that have all but vanished from the Democratic platform. Acting like supporting someone who doesn't win is "doing nothing" is preposterous. Ok so option 3 then, thank you. Good luck. I'm not stopping people from realizing they don't have to support Hillary to prevent Trump from winning. That's a choice they make. If Democrats rallied behind Bernie he'd win in a landslide, I tried to get people to see that, and that millions wont support Clinton (rightly or not) so if she loses it's on her, not on people who actually voted for someone/something they believe in instead of being held hostage by the parties. I honestly can't believe left leaning folks are making the argument that you have to support the party's pick while simultaneously saying the right should stand up for their principles and not support their party's pick. It's laughable. How many times do you intend to make this exact same post? Do you need us to quote the other times you've said this so that you can understand we heard you? What can we do to make you feel like we are listening to you?
However many times people are going to make the absurd assertion that not voting for Hillary is the equivalent of doing nothing?
|
On June 25 2016 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:41 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:22 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 00:00 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Of course we need good policies and proposals. I would like to see a larger focus on election finance reform and salary stagnation.
But I took that the view that vote should be earned by the candidate during 2000 and 2004 elections and still regret it. And out of those elections my brother got set to two useless wars, lost a few friends and put all of us through hell. I’m not doing that again, even if I am not wild about Clinton.
You supported the wrong candidate if you wanted anything more than some lip service on campaign finance reform. Also if you want to avoid more pointless wars. You picked the biggest supporter of the Iraq war you had to choose from, and the one who is already been a big advocate for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan and keeping more soldiers like your brother in Iraq. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if that's actually what you wanted, you most certainly backed the wrong candidate. Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Drumpf. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Drumpf", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great. Im sorry, what were the other option's again? For my benefit, if you will please Support candidates I agree with more than Hillary. That everyone else thinks you have to vote for a Dem or Rep is a problem that doesn't get fixed by perpetuating it. Nader isn't the reason Gore lost (not sure if that myth is still alive here). Gore was calling for paying down the debt with the social security fund, cutting taxes, and increasing military spending. All things that have all but vanished from the Democratic platform. Acting like supporting someone who doesn't win is "doing nothing" is preposterous. Ok so option 3 then, thank you. Good luck. I'm not stopping people from realizing they don't have to support Hillary to prevent Drumpf from winning. That's a choice they make. If Democrats rallied behind Bernie he'd win in a landslide, I tried to get people to see that, and that millions wont support Clinton (rightly or not) so if she loses it's on her, not on people who actually voted for someone/something they believe in instead of being held hostage by the parties. I honestly can't believe left leaning folks are making the argument that you have to support the party's pick while simultaneously saying the right should stand up for their principles and not support their party's pick. It's laughable.
Im sorry, at no point have I suggested that the right shouldn't support their party's pick. Please dont ascribe me to said left leaning folks. Thank you
The way I see your point is you are basically saying I didnt get things my way so fuck it based on this ill conceived notion that someone who couldnt even win his parties nomination would win a general election. And its everyones fault for not doing things the way you wanted them to. Again that is petulance not principal.
We get it, you can stop it now I apologize for raising the subject I was not aware that had been beaten to death.
On June 25 2016 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:On June 25 2016 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:41 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:22 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 03:15 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:
[quote]
Its ok, you can get Drumpf and teach America a lesson. The I told you saw is always worth it. If Drumpf wins, Hillary has no one to blame but herself and her supporters. Trying to put it on others is silly. yeah, and I didnt say that, I said that you can have that one on your unconscious for NOT supporting her and being complicit in getting a Drumpf. At the end of the day you still have a choice to make and a do nothing choice is just as bad as voting the bad guy. Or the worse guy whatever floats your boat. You are confusing being petulant as being principled. I believe they say things to the effect of get your head out of your ass in these sorts of instances. The options aren't limited to "vote for Hillary", "vote for Drumpf", "do nothing". That's just a matter of fact, so if that could be the last time that false argument is put forward that would be great. Im sorry, what were the other option's again? For my benefit, if you will please Support candidates I agree with more than Hillary. That everyone else thinks you have to vote for a Dem or Rep is a problem that doesn't get fixed by perpetuating it. Nader isn't the reason Gore lost (not sure if that myth is still alive here). Gore was calling for paying down the debt with the social security fund, cutting taxes, and increasing military spending. All things that have all but vanished from the Democratic platform. Acting like supporting someone who doesn't win is "doing nothing" is preposterous. Ok so option 3 then, thank you. Good luck. I'm not stopping people from realizing they don't have to support Hillary to prevent Drumpf from winning. That's a choice they make. If Democrats rallied behind Bernie he'd win in a landslide, I tried to get people to see that, and that millions wont support Clinton (rightly or not) so if she loses it's on her, not on people who actually voted for someone/something they believe in instead of being held hostage by the parties. I honestly can't believe left leaning folks are making the argument that you have to support the party's pick while simultaneously saying the right should stand up for their principles and not support their party's pick. It's laughable. How many times do you intend to make this exact same post? Do you need us to quote the other times you've said this so that you can understand we heard you? What can we do to make you feel like we are listening to you? However many times people are going to make the absurd assertion that not voting for Hillary is the equivalent of doing nothing?
because practically speaking, it is. Clearly you dont feel that way, and it doesnt seem like any form of reasoning will change that so Plansix was right, we can drop this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
