2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 7,079 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you didn't see why democrats called the republican party billionaires stirring up irrational hatred to get people to vote for the economic policies of billionaires before, you had better see it now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Grond wrote:

It was not "culture" it was the accepted wisdom of the time. Ever heard of Social Darwinism? White man's burden? This was accepted as evident truth for a very long time. I'd argue that Social Darwinism is still alive and well today quite frankly.

Picking one person out to hold them up as an example of "OMG look at the crazy things ppl said back then!" only strengthens my point that Teddy having public friendships and advisors that were black or simply non white shows how open minded in that era he was.

He was talked out of taking on Jim Crow laws after the whole dinner debacle because of fear it could incite another Civil War. I mean you can definitely find things he said that are by our standards racist, absolutely...but those were considered as common sense back then as saying grass was green or the sky was blue.

Roosevelt's accomplishments to the common man in America far, far outweigh any modern day squeamishness over his literally outdated racial views.

So, if we're bringing him back to be president are we magically updating his now completely unacceptable views to something more in tune with the times, but somehow making all the things we like about him the same?

I'd definitely support Teddy Roosevelt "the Good Parts version". I'd do that for most past presidents. Otherwise, despite admiring the impact some of them had in their day, I wouldn't even consider anyone from before women's liberation and the end of segregation.

In that case, you can toss both current nominees out in that same tub of bath water. Both major party candidates have stuff a whole lot of people don't like at all. Doesn't leave much of an option, now does it?

Edit:

So, that leaves us with ...


  • Gerald Ford courtesy of the 1975 Equal Rights Amendment, 11 years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is your first 'eligible' former President. Permitted Turkey to occupy northern Cyprus that continues to this day. Unacceptable.
  • Jimmy Carter, considered utterly ineffectual as a President. Bailed out Chrysler Motors, froze military pay raises. Unacceptable.
  • Reagan. Plenty of ways to demonize him. Unacceptable.
  • G.H.W. Bush. One guess ... Unacceptable.
  • Bill Clinton. Plenty of ways to demonize him too. Unacceptable.
  • Dubya Bush. One guess only ... Unacceptable.
  • Obama. You can see which way this is going, right? Unacceptable.

Every. Single. President. Has things that someone isn't going to like. If you're going to go that route, instead of the positives each President achieved during their term(s) of office, none of them are going to pass muster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Grond wrote:

It was not "culture" it was the accepted wisdom of the time. Ever heard of Social Darwinism? White man's burden? This was accepted as evident truth for a very long time. I'd argue that Social Darwinism is still alive and well today quite frankly.

Picking one person out to hold them up as an example of "OMG look at the crazy things ppl said back then!" only strengthens my point that Teddy having public friendships and advisors that were black or simply non white shows how open minded in that era he was.

He was talked out of taking on Jim Crow laws after the whole dinner debacle because of fear it could incite another Civil War. I mean you can definitely find things he said that are by our standards racist, absolutely...but those were considered as common sense back then as saying grass was green or the sky was blue.

Roosevelt's accomplishments to the common man in America far, far outweigh any modern day squeamishness over his literally outdated racial views.

So, if we're bringing him back to be president are we magically updating his now completely unacceptable views to something more in tune with the times, but somehow making all the things we like about him the same?

I'd definitely support Teddy Roosevelt "the Good Parts version". I'd do that for most past presidents. Otherwise, despite admiring the impact some of them had in their day, I wouldn't even consider anyone from before women's liberation and the end of segregation.

In that case, you can toss both current nominees out in that same tub of bath water. Both major party candidates have stuff a whole lot of people don't like at all. Doesn't leave much of an option, now does it?

Are we in the same conversation?

I don't see how what you wrote relates to what I said at all.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

In that case, you can toss both current nominees out in that same tub of bath water. Both major party candidates have stuff a whole lot of people don't like at all. Doesn't leave much of an option, now does it?

Are we in the same conversation?

I don't see how what you wrote relates to what I said at all.

Because if you are suggesting that Teddy Roosevelt is an unacceptable candidate because he held views that today would be unacceptable to a large fraction of the voting public, then you have to acknowledge that both Clinton and Trump hold (present tense) views that are unacceptable to a large fraction of the voting public.

And, indeed, I'm not sure who you could nominate that would not "have stuff a whole lot of people don't like at all." If "[you] wouldn't even consider anyone from before women's liberation and the end of segregation," I'm not sure why you would consider anyone from after those, either. The baby-to-bathwater ratio of your acceptability criteria seems a bit high.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

In that case, you can toss both current nominees out in that same tub of bath water. Both major party candidates have stuff a whole lot of people don't like at all. Doesn't leave much of an option, now does it?

Are we in the same conversation?

I don't see how what you wrote relates to what I said at all.

Because if you are suggesting that Teddy Roosevelt is an unacceptable candidate because he held views that today would be unacceptable to a large fraction of the voting public, then you have to acknowledge that both Clinton and Trump hold (present tense) views that are unacceptable to a large fraction of the voting public.

And, indeed, I'm not sure who you could nominate that would not "have stuff a whole lot of people don't like at all." If "[you] wouldn't even consider anyone from before women's liberation and the end of segregation," I'm not sure why you would consider anyone from after those, either. The baby-to-bathwater ratio of your acceptability criteria seems a bit high.

Because the world has changed. Most people who are racist or sexist today would be among the least so even 60 years ago. The casual assumptions of racism and sexism back then wouldn't be at all acceptable today, not just to "large fractions" but to nearly everyone.

These aren't things there's division or debate over. Not things the parties are fight over. We're talking things that don't even come up outside of isolated creepy bits of the internet. "Is the only good indian a dead indian?" from above. Maybe "Should women work outside the home?" Or "Should miscegenation be legal?"

Mind you, I was speaking of bringing back past Presidents. I sure you could find individuals - activists maybe?


I'm not sure what these views are that are so horrendous. You seem to think I'm saying, "I refuse to support any candidate with flaws." But I'm not. All candidates are flawed, and there are very few I could wholeheartedly support. Someone like Warren or Merkley might come close.

The thing is, there's a bigass order of magnitude between Theodore "The Only Good Indian..." Roosevelt and Barack "Erode Privacy Rights" Obama. Or even George "Let's Invade Iraq!" Bush, if you prefer. These flaws are not equal.

I would sooner vote for someone advocating a war I didn't think was smart than someone who could hold such hateful views about any minority. Would I vote for GWB over TR? Probably not, since GWB had his own hate. But it would be a rough November.

Liberty's Edge

Norton I 2016!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, it's interesting that this thread has turned into an argument over historical candidates for president rather than the modern deal. It's almost like people are uncomfortable with the current year's options...

Krensky, I don't think so. I'm not a big fan of his personal privacy platform. I use Malwarebytes these days.


Vote Sobieski 2016


1 person marked this as a favorite.

More like it's easy to derail a thread.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, it's interesting that this thread has turned into an argument over historical candidates for president rather than the modern deal. It's almost like people are uncomfortable with the current year's options...

Well, Grond, who started that derail seemed to think so, though they didn't really say anything about either actual candidate. May just have a TR fetish.:)

We see this at every election. Maybe it's just the crowd around here.:)

Personally, I'm comfortable with Clinton. And get more attached with every attack on her. Every b+*~+*$* scandal that gets dredged up. All the warmongering and corporate-owned nonsense. I don't care. It all sounds like the old Boy who cried wolf to me now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Grond wrote:

It was not "culture" it was the accepted wisdom of the time. Ever heard of Social Darwinism? White man's burden? This was accepted as evident truth for a very long time. I'd argue that Social Darwinism is still alive and well today quite frankly.

Picking one person out to hold them up as an example of "OMG look at the crazy things ppl said back then!" only strengthens my point that Teddy having public friendships and advisors that were black or simply non white shows how open minded in that era he was.

He was talked out of taking on Jim Crow laws after the whole dinner debacle because of fear it could incite another Civil War. I mean you can definitely find things he said that are by our standards racist, absolutely...but those were considered as common sense back then as saying grass was green or the sky was blue.

Roosevelt's accomplishments to the common man in America far, far outweigh any modern day squeamishness over his literally outdated racial views.

So, if we're bringing him back to be president are we magically updating his now completely unacceptable views to something more in tune with the times, but somehow making all the things we like about him the same?

I'd definitely support Teddy Roosevelt "the Good Parts version". I'd do that for most past presidents. Otherwise, despite admiring the impact some of them had in their day, I wouldn't even consider anyone from before women's liberation and the end of segregation.

Of course TR would be updated in his social views. As I mentioned before and I can tell by some of the comments how little it is understood but "white man's burden" was a steadfast belief among educated white people in the Western world. The whole point was a sense of moral obligation to bring up the non white world into the civilized world that white men had created.

Since things now are far more equal I don't think TR would feel a "burden" and see that outdated thinking was exactly that: outdated thinking.

He said things like this:

"Our effort should be to secure to each man, whatever his color, equality of opportunity, equality of treatment before the law."

And also this:

"principle of giving to each man what is justly due him, of treating him on his worth as a man, granting him no special favors, but denying him no proper opportunity for labor and the reward of labor."

And also this too:

"One of the gravest problems before our people, the problem of so dealing with the man of one color as to secure him the rights that no man would grudge him if he were of another color. To solve this problem it is, of course, necessary to educate him to perform the duties a failure to perform which will render him a curse to himself and to all around him. Mind that. And it is true of every one. In addition to rights in every Republic there are correlative duties. And if the man, black or white, is not trained to do his duty he becomes necessarily a festering plague spot in the whole body politic."

He also was a visionary that saw how true this would be in America:

"Every generous impulse in us revolts at the thought of thrusting down instead of helping up such a man. To deny any man the fair treatment granted to others no better than he is to commit a wrong upon him — a wrong sure to react in the long run upon those guilty of such denial. The only safe principle upon which Americans can act is that of “all men up,” not that of “some men down.”

So...yeah. I'm fairly confident that if turn of the 1900's century TR could see those things as true it wouldn't take much for him to change some of indoctrinated views.

Anyone who studies him and with two degrees in history I can see I have done so will see that he truly cared about making the most good for the most Americans as he could. He did that in defiance of what both parties wanted and was remarkably successful in getting his way with Congress and the Supreme Court.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I'm also pretty happy with Clinton. I know she's not perfect -- I absolutely strongly would have preferred Sanders -- but I think she's pretty decent enough.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Also, it's interesting that this thread has turned into an argument over historical candidates for president rather than the modern deal. It's almost like people are uncomfortable with the current year's options...

Krensky, I don't think so. I'm not a big fan of his personal privacy platform. I use Malwarebytes these days.

* Adds the Beaver's dog-lizard-thing to the list of people under double secret discordian excommunication.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Conservative Anklebiter wrote:
More like it's easy to derail a thread.

Not my attention. I wanted only to point out that for quite some time now both parties simply put forward candidates who never break from party and only care about certain oxen to be gored. This is in contrast to TR who is the ideal candidate in that they would put the most good for the most people as a priority.

When is the last time you can honestly say a nominee from either party actually did that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Grond wrote:
When is the last time you can honestly say a nominee from either party actually did that?

Last night


CrystalSeas wrote:
Grond wrote:
When is the last time you can honestly say a nominee from either party actually did that?
Last night

lol ok then. Time for the blanket partisanship to begin!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Grond wrote:

lol ok then. Time for the blanket partisanship to begin!

Saying that a specific speech contradicted your global claim is not "partisanship".

It's a specific example that refutes your statement


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A speech is not even close to the same weight class. The TPP qualifies, kind of.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Grond wrote:
When is the last time you can honestly say a nominee from either party actually did that?

I dunno, the ACA comes close, being an effort to make sure that no American, Republican or Democrat, would ever die simply due to not being able to afford proper health care. But I guess that's too "partisan". Not unlike what anything Teddy tried to do would be labeled these days—"These national parks are a shocking expense and just proof that the Republicans are determined to take your land blargle blurgle..."

Partisanship isn't just created by the president. It's a product of current situations. It's why the Republicans hate the Democrats more than ever, even though the Democrats have been sliding to the right for years.

thejeff wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, it's interesting that this thread has turned into an argument over historical candidates for president rather than the modern deal. It's almost like people are uncomfortable with the current year's options...

Well, Grond, who started that derail seemed to think so, though they didn't really say anything about either actual candidate. May just have a TR fetish.:)

We see this at every election. Maybe it's just the crowd around here.:)

Personally, I'm comfortable with Clinton. And get more attached with every attack on her. Every b$&@%#%@ scandal that gets dredged up. All the warmongering and corporate-owned nonsense. I don't care. It all sounds like the old Boy who cried wolf to me now.

I'm uncomfortable with her foreign policy style. Veeeery uncomfortable. And I've never really liked the Clintons' dedication to trying to reclaim the South through moderation, incrementalism, and dogwhistling ("Superpredators"? Really?).

But all the talk about scandals is just absurd. Everyone wants to stick -gate to something these days. Everyone's got their pet conspiracies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ACA doesn't represent Obama bucking his own party - it wouldn't have passed without them. The TPP (kind of) does, at least if the speeches during the DNC were any indication.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Point. Then I'd probably say the most recent example that was actually good was Dick Cheney coming out to support gay marriage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Point. Then I'd probably say the most recent example that was actually good was Dick Cheney coming out to support gay marriage.

Having a personal stake in something usually gets you to look at things through a different lens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm more disappointed in the ACA than any piece of legislature in many years. I want UHC and the fact America is practically the only Western nation without it is frankly embarrassing. Health care should be given to more than those who can afford it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grond wrote:
I'm more disappointed in the ACA than any piece of legislature in many years. I want UHC and the fact America is practically the only Western nation without it is frankly embarrassing. Health care should be given to more than those who can afford it.

That ACA plans are hideously expensive (both in monthly cost and especially in the annual OOP amounts, co-pays et al in combination) doesn't help matters any. My family had better insurance at a much smaller monthly cost than what we were forced to pick from. We paid for ours all on our own. The policy we have now is barely tolerable ... and we'll be hating life if we get into any serious medical trouble.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
Grond wrote:
I'm more disappointed in the ACA than any piece of legislature in many years. I want UHC and the fact America is practically the only Western nation without it is frankly embarrassing. Health care should be given to more than those who can afford it.
That ACA plans are hideously expensive (both in monthly cost and especially in the annual OOP amounts, co-pays et al in combination) doesn't help matters any. My family had better insurance at a much smaller monthly cost than what we were forced to pick from. We paid for ours all on our own. The policy we have now is barely tolerable ... and we'll be hating life if we get into any serious medical trouble.

I have family and friends that have the same difficulties or frankly worse because of the ACA. Those plans are frankly horrible. UHC would remove this kind of undue financial burden from so many. I was hoping that Obama would finally get UHC when he had the full Congress behind him but unfortunately for all of us that did not happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Point. Then I'd probably say the most recent example that was actually good was Dick Cheney coming out to support gay marriage.

Not a nominee, so it doesn't count. Nor did he actually do anything to support it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't completely blame Obama for failing to get UHC or Single-Payer enacted. Democrats had gotten really used to clinging to moderation by that point. Congress might have seemed blue on the surface, but like veins, it got purpler the closer you looked.

The ACA has helped my family in a lot of really important ways—keeping us on our parents' health insurance, getting rid of the "preexisting conditions" loophole that was f*%%ing us over. It definitely wasn't a complete disaster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't blame Obama for the ACA, or more importantly its costliness, etc. There were several hundred people involved in making that happen and all of that. They get to share in that blame.


So wait, we're looking for a nominee with policies that not only meet Grond's standards for "good for everyone", but also have to specifically go against their own party on that issue. So any case where their party actually wants to do the right thing can't be counted.

Maybe LBJ selling the Dixiecrats down the river on Civil Rights?

If they're actually going to accomplish anything, they'll need Congressional support from someone, so we're basically looking at a President from one party supporting an issue their party opposes and the other supports, right? Maybe I'm just too partisan, but I can't actually think of anything on the Republican platform and opposed by Democrats I'd actually want. (Some things not supported by either.) So it would need to be a Republican nominee.

Honestly, Trump probably qualifies. He's said a bunch things that go against Republican orthodoxy. It's kind of hard to tell, since his policy positions are all over the place and change from day to day. Not sure if I'd describe any of them as "would put the most good for the most people as a priority". Some might think so.

I don't know. I'm not really sold on "Must be from a party that opposes things I want" as a primary qualifier for a candidate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I don't completely blame Obama for failing to get UHC or Single-Payer enacted. Democrats had gotten really used to clinging to moderation by that point. Congress might have seemed blue on the surface, but like veins, it got purpler the closer you looked.

The ACA has helped my family in a lot of really important ways—keeping us on our parents' health insurance, getting rid of the "preexisting conditions" loophole that was f%$!ing us over. It definitely wasn't a complete disaster.

Pretty much this. I can accept that it's hurt some people, but I also know, at least casually, some who'd be in a really bad way place without it.

They needed every Democratic Senator to pass it. That meant every individual Senator could veto it. Some of them were pretty damn conservative. That included Lieberman, who'd campaigned for McCain and was quite happily screwing the Democratic Party over while remaining just useful and indispensable enough to keep them from throwing him to the curb. And wheeling Senator Byrd in from his deathbed for votes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the best action we saw was with Bill Clinton and a Repub controlled Congress. Both gave up stuff, and it wasn't the end of the world. He was so laid back...

That's not Hillary, so I don't have any hope that this would happen with another Clinton presidency.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the best action we saw was with Bill Clinton and a Repub controlled Congress. Both gave up stuff, and it wasn't the end of the world. He was so laid back...

That's not Hillary, so I don't have any hope that this would happen with another Clinton presidency.

Ah yes, that long distant era of amity and cooperation that we'll never see again.

Back when the Republicans started in on the witch hunts against the Clintons.

But of course, it's Hillary that means there won't be any cooperation now. Not the party chanting "Lock Her Up" at their convention. If only she was more laid back then Republicans would be willing to work together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have hopes the world won't implode with Hillary in charge. Slim but at least it's there...

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Earth Campaign DM really needs to just declare Rocks fall, Everyone dies. Its run its course. The Human setting has clearly reached the same tipping point as the "Jurrasic" setting before it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Burko,

That's why I'm running for my portal that leads to Bavoria. Sure it might destroy my soul but at least I have a fighting chance. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the best action we saw was with Bill Clinton and a Repub controlled Congress. Both gave up stuff, and it wasn't the end of the world. He was so laid back...

That's not Hillary, so I don't have any hope that this would happen with another Clinton presidency.

Ah yes, that long distant era of amity and cooperation that we'll never see again.

Back when the Republicans started in on the witch hunts against the Clintons.

But of course, it's Hillary that means there won't be any cooperation now. Not the party chanting "Lock Her Up" at their convention. If only she was more laid back then Republicans would be willing to work together.

Snark aside, yes, because it takes two to tango. Not one side, both.

I don't believe she has it in her. But, I suppose it's more convenient to vilify people who want justice, when you know she wouldn't anyways.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the best action we saw was with Bill Clinton and a Repub controlled Congress. Both gave up stuff, and it wasn't the end of the world. He was so laid back...

That's not Hillary, so I don't have any hope that this would happen with another Clinton presidency.

Ah yes, that long distant era of amity and cooperation that we'll never see again.

Back when the Republicans started in on the witch hunts against the Clintons.

But of course, it's Hillary that means there won't be any cooperation now. Not the party chanting "Lock Her Up" at their convention. If only she was more laid back then Republicans would be willing to work together.

Snark aside, yes, because it takes two to tango. Not one side, both.

I don't believe she has it in her. But, I suppose it's more convenient to vilify people who want justice, when you know she wouldn't anyways.

Justice has already been served. That's not vilifying the rowdy folks clamoring for "justice," they are already petty villains.


thejeff wrote:

So wait, we're looking for a nominee with policies that not only meet Grond's standards for "good for everyone", but also have to specifically go against their own party on that issue. So any case where their party actually wants to do the right thing can't be counted.

Maybe LBJ selling the Dixiecrats down the river on Civil Rights?

If they're actually going to accomplish anything, they'll need Congressional support from someone, so we're basically looking at a President from one party supporting an issue their party opposes and the other supports, right? Maybe I'm just too partisan, but I can't actually think of anything on the Republican platform and opposed by Democrats I'd actually want. (Some things not supported by either.) So it would need to be a Republican nominee.

Honestly, Trump probably qualifies. He's said a bunch things that go against Republican orthodoxy. It's kind of hard to tell, since his policy positions are all over the place and change from day to day. Not sure if I'd describe any of them as "would put the most good for the most people as a priority". Some might think so.

I don't know. I'm not really sold on "Must be from a party that opposes things I want" as a primary qualifier for a candidate.

Whoa now, let's don't go straw man hunting.

I never said my criteria for a candidate was someone who wants to flick their own party in the nose or something along those lines. I said the ideal candidate is someone that is willing to do the most good for the most people even if it means contradicting their party on the issue(s).

I don't consider Trump a real candidate. I have never in all my life seen a candidate that I honestly believe wants to put down being POTUS just to have something to brag about on a Conan interview on TBS in five years.

"So, uh, Donald, you were POTUS can you talk about your four year term?"

"I could do that Conan but I would much rather talk about Trump's Apprentice themed show currently on Netflix called The Intern where I, President Trump, concentrated on which interns made a real difference to me while leaving all matters of state to my cabinet."

This could happen.


Ok I'm done. If the FBI director saying "Yeah she did this, but no one will indict her" is gonna be dismissed, then, what's the point?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not what Comey said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Ok I'm done. If the FBI director saying "Yeah she did this, but no one will indict her" is gonna be dismissed, then, what's the point?

Eating Ice Cream when the temperature heat index is above 90?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems that just demonstrates how tenuous the balance currently stands for this election.

Come about mid-August, the polling should be a much better indicator of where things stand.

Edit: noms, ice cream.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Turin,

I figured I'd inject humor in this thread along with the fact I'm sitting in a room with no AC in the continental United States. Which is a not a great place to be this summer, even at 10 pm EST.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

I think the best action we saw was with Bill Clinton and a Repub controlled Congress. Both gave up stuff, and it wasn't the end of the world. He was so laid back...

That's not Hillary, so I don't have any hope that this would happen with another Clinton presidency.

Hillary and Bill are very alike in politics. Hillary's a worse speaker, but so's everyone except maybe Obama and that lawyer at the DNC. :P

I personally abhor Clinton's "Give them what they want in exchange for what we want" approach. It led to mass incarceration, the rise of the Blue Dog Democrats (see: Lieberman), and the continued incarceration of Leonard Peltier. There's being open to compromise, and then there's compromising basic principles. The Clintons, in my mind, lean towards the latter. :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Turin,

I figured I'd inject humor in this thread along with the fact I'm sitting in a room with no AC in the continental United States. Which is a not a great place to be this summer, even at 10 pm EST.

Right there with you! It's been a horrible week weather-wise.

Oh, and what ice cream are you nomming on? I just polished off a whole container of coconut ice cream. Not my favorite brand, so it became a "cooling off before the internal reactor explodes" measure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Turin,

If I had my choice? Probably something like Coldstone Creamery's Chocolate Devotion. Barring that, Turkey Hill's Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough. If all else fails, there's a flavor by Kroger called Death by Chocolate.

Weather wise has improved but I fear for tomorrow since I'm sure it will be horrid and no clear idea if we'll get a repair man in tomorrow.


Hitdice wrote:
That's not what Comey said.

He said she was "extremely careless" and that he believed hostile parties had access. The US code applies if it was willing or through negligence.

I guess it depends if you think extremely carless = negligence, I guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Turin,

If I had my choice? Probably something like Coldstone Creamery's Chocolate Devotion. Barring that, Turkey Hill's Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough. If all else fails, there's a flavor by Kroger called Death by Chocolate.

Weather wise has improved but I fear for tomorrow since I'm sure it will be horrid and no clear idea if we'll get a repair man in tomorrow.

Have you tried something like this? My impression is that it works best with dry ice (usually available at the grocery stores). You'd need several to cool any significant space, but if it means you're not sweating pounds off daily ... well ...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Ok I'm done. If the FBI director saying "Yeah she did this, but no one will indict her" is gonna be dismissed, then, what's the point?

Yeah, she violated a lot of things, but no one gets indicted for doing what she did, especially in the state department. It's like the summer of 69 over there. If she was anyone else the spooks the would have annoyed her boss into chewing here out and that would be the end of it.

This is a complete, total, and utter non issue. You cannot harp on this and then tell me that the republicans are not the party of getting people irrationally angry to direct them away from the real source of our problems (the billionaires running both parties)

51 to 100 of 7,079 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards