-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 12, 2019, 11:45:40 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 216953 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1950 on: November 13, 2016, 03:35:06 PM »

gosh. how hard id it to figure out. people had enough of obozo's programs the past 8 years.

Actually Obama still has comparatively high approval ratings so I don't think that's it.

Quote
clinton offered no change, she was going to continue obummer's crap. if she offered solutions she easily would have won. fact is, she had no solutions. the silent majority, middle class WORKING people, were/are fed up with oblamer's proghrams and their cost...obamacare, immagration, and the  cost of welfare (and having to support the 47% who are getting a free ride).

In other words, they are opposed to the programs that help them and, instead, voted for someone with an economic platform that has historically only led to the impoverishment of the working and middle classes. You have made an important point here though - that Trump's capacity to delude this portion of the society into accepting policies directly meant to disenfranchise them was stronger in this election.

Quote
they are the reason clinton lost. they got trump elected.

A silent majority did not get Trump elected. Only 25% of the population voted for him, less than the amount of people who voted for Mitt Romney in the previous election.

Quote
all who want their freebies here are upset cause they may now lose them. hope so. i have to WORK for what i have.

Well if you are a member of the American middle class, you are there because of welfare state policies enacted by Bernie Sanders-style economic decisions that were enacted in the 1930s. And if you see those benefits being chipped away, it's because of Trump-style policies that have been put in place more and more since the 1970s. This is just a historical truism.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 03:47:39 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8142



View Profile
« Reply #1951 on: November 13, 2016, 04:31:10 PM »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EG0wQRsXLi4
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1952 on: November 13, 2016, 04:34:31 PM »

I want to know where these freebies are and how to get them. When I was out of work 5 years ago after I had my stroke, they certainly weren't around. I keep hearing about welfare "bums" and people getting a "free ride". Does anybody actually know anybody who fits that description?
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1953 on: November 13, 2016, 04:35:47 PM »

  Is Hillary's defeat also a repudiation of Barack Obama? Don't know, but I will miss the President's quick wit and easy grace and charm. My provisional grade for the Obama Presidency is C+.

  Some of my earlier posts about Hillary may have been overly dramatic. "Congenital liar" was harsh.

 President-Elect Trump is on 60 MINUTES right now.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1954 on: November 13, 2016, 04:40:06 PM »


:D
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1955 on: November 13, 2016, 06:03:11 PM »

  Hard to imagine Woodrow Wilson or Calvin Coolidge enjoying the company of Donald Trump.  (In an existential Hall of Presidents.)
Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1956 on: November 14, 2016, 05:24:33 AM »

  The 60 Minutes interview did nothing to reassure. What a terrible mistake.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4937



View Profile
« Reply #1957 on: November 15, 2016, 01:10:42 PM »



  The e-mails of Wasserman-Schulz provide solid evidence the DNC was in collusion with Team Clinton. Likewise Donna Brazile in her capacity as CNN analyst feeding Team Clinton the debate questions. Did Sanders get any favors from these people? Nope.
Close only matters in horse-shoes (and some other things, of course) but not the election of the Democratic nominee.
Can you prove collusion and can you prove it affected votes?
Sanders chose to work outside of a party structure for most of his career and much of his campaign. That's not the DNC's doing.

Regarding Donna Brazile, do you think that Clinton's answer about the water in Flint had an impact on the election or the nomination. Do you think that her amazing answer based on that super surprising question tilted the nomination in her favor?
Do you also assume that Sanders didn't have media allies? Did you get to read alll of his emails to ensure that?



Emily, while nobody can unquestionably prove that Wasserman-Schultz or Brazile's actions affected votes (I certainly wouldn't say those actions alone cost Hillary the election, but were IMO certainly a contributing factor), one thing seems pretty clear to me. Hillary NOT completely distancing herself from Wasserman-Schultz IMMEDIATELY after Wasserman-Schultz's corruption was proven was a huge problem, and a giant hit to Hillary's credibility.  

Literally right after the DNC was forced to apologize for behind-the-scenes corruption, and to apologize for the emails proving Hillary's cronies were conspiring to find ways to use Bernie's Judaism against him in certain states (side note: can you imagine for one moment how people would have reacted if the shoe was on the other foot, with proven emails showing Bernie having DNC cronies who were trying to use Hillary's gender against her?), Hillary gave her old pal Debbie an honorary position on her campaign.

I don't care if anyone wants to minimize what Debbie's honorary position was on the campaign; the fact is that Hillary's statement showed not even a smidge of disappointment at Debbie's unethical corruption. Even if Debbie is Hillary's friend, and she wants to help a friend out (a human emotion I can understand and empathize with), Hillary nevertheless acted in a very, VERY foolish manner. It's not about how important (or not) the honorary position was. It's about the principle of the matter.

If you are someone like Hillary, who already had a credibility problem at this point in the campaign, where people in both parties believe you to have major ethics problems (again – we don’t have to debate if this is “fair” or not; it was not a non-issue, and Hillary surely knew this), why on earth would you not put out a statement saying how disappointed you were at the DNC not being impartial, and disappointed with Debbie's actions? Wouldn’t Hillary want to prove those people who doubt Hillary's ethics wrong? Or at the very least, Hillary could have simply not give Debbie a new position on her campaign. At mimimum that could have happened.

Even the biggest Hillary fans should realize how her actions of not cutting Debbie off completely would come off. It was so laughable and insulting. Again – during a campaign, just imagine Bernie doing something like that. Hillary fans, in particular women I'd imagine, would want to burn him at the stake! Just imagine Obama doing something like that. If they did, I would think they were acting like scumbags, and would also think they were incredibly arrogant for them to even assume that they think they can ultimately get away with acting like that. And that arrogance has zero to do with gender, and everything to do with the actions themselves. Find me another example of a politician doing something like this, and I will call them out as acting terribly, regardless of gender.

Now here’s a question I pose to anyone who’d still want to defend these actions of Hillary. If you were then, at that point in the election, a voter who was on the fence about which candidate to vote for... or if you are someone who deeply supported Bernie… and now you see the person (Debbie) who was a prime Bernie-screwer-over behind the scenes at the DNC get a job in Hillary’s campaign, and a very kind, nicely-worded letter by Hillary sent to the press about Debbie, without Hillary even attempting to fake being upset about it (we know Hillary wouldn’t actually be upset at Debbie trying to rig the election against Bernie, but Hillary could at least fake it a bit just as an olive branch to those who were justifiably livid about it)… do you not see how this could make people want to not vote for Hillary, and to just say “f*** it” to the whole damn election? Some people just had enough. It was very insulting.

Now I am not saying I agree with any swing state voters who would do this, because voting against Trump was immeasurably important IMO, but I can understand how actions like this could have been a contributing factor. As sick to our stomachs as we are about Trump, we have to be able to have an understanding that Hillary was often her worst enemy during this campaign, and frankly this was an unconscionably stupid action that I have no doubt cost her a not insignificant amount of support from people who just got fed up with the corruption.

And this doesn’t even begin to touch upon Brazile’s actions of helping Hillary cheat during the primaries, which she amazingly refuses to apologize for. It’s much more about the response to getting caught with the hands in the cookie jar (and again, Hillary’s refusal to condemn cheating/corruption that is PROVEN), as opposed to the act itself, which was bad enough. The only way to make things right when corruption is proven is to apologize for it, and be sincere about it. Hillary and her cronies, instead, double down. Refusing to apologize for terrible actions doesn't work for Mike Love (a man), and it doesn't work for Hillary (a woman). People who act terribly are gonna be called out on it, and nobody should be surprised at Hillary's likeability problem with (just for starters) actions like these.

That said, the fact that Trump has gotten away with actions that are beyond any comprehension of what is a decent way to act, and that his supporters ignore these actions, is certainty symptomatic of deeply problematic systemic sexism. It is BEYOND gross and BEYOND misogynistic. But it is not helping matters on the whole to try and normalize Hillary's behavior regarding the Wasserman-Schultz or Brazile incidents. It was truly inexcusable. All that does is feed into the notion by Trumpers that some people want to excuse everything and anything by Hillary, thereby giving them carte blanche to do the same for their pathetic orange hero.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 01:52:25 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4937



View Profile
« Reply #1958 on: November 15, 2016, 01:38:22 PM »


Frankly, anyone who asserts that they are absolutely not misogynist is suspect because I don't believe anyone raised in our world is absolutely not misogynist.

Does that mean that every single person in the world (men, women, trans folks, LGBTQ) is a misogynist? And does that mean that every woman in the world cannot ever be criticized without risk (by the person doing the criticism) that they will be fingered as a misogynist?  Should people have that fear?

I agree that people should have an omnipresent awareness that perhaps their views on case-by-case topics are being shaped by societal conditioning, and I believe *to a point* that this is ALWAYS the case; I don't think that is a bad thing to be aware of, yet it has to remain a "perhaps" in each case. My question is when does that educated knowledge turn into walking on eggshells, and when does that eventually lead to people being muzzled for fear of repercussions. And if that muzzling is perhaps what some people ultimately desire.

I truly want to understand this point of view. Certainly not trying to pick a fight, but I feel this is a very important topic for people to be having intelligent discourse about at this point in time.

If someone feels deeply in their heart that a woman is worthy of criticism over some (or an accumulation of many) action(s), do they have to fear repercussions for ever voicing their point of view, simply by someone declaring they are being misogynist? I absolutely agree that misogyny remains a huge, huge problem in the world, and in our country, not one morsel of doubt about it. My fear is that if we do away with nuance, then we will have kangaroo courts of public opinion where someone can be accused of being misogynist, and all it takes is for one person to make that accusation, and it's true. IMO it *has* to be a case-by-case thing.

What if a hypothetical woman, who - let's say for the sake of argument - you believe personally mistreated you and acted arrogantly to you (your perception of matters)... does this mean if you criticized them for that, or called them out as being arrogant, then all it takes is that one declaration of misogyny by someone else to make the misogyny qualification absolutely, unquestionably true?

I should add to all this: all one need to do is look at social media to see the amount of nincompoops who have been trolling since Trump's win, trying to espouse the view of minimizing things like sexism and racism. Despite a video of a black veteran being harassed for being accused of not being a real veteran, he shamefully had his food taken away by a moron manager at Chili's, which seems to obviously be a racially-motivated incident, being that it started with another customer (who leveled the accusation) instigating a conversation about whether black veterans were allowed in WWII. Also, the West Virginia mayor and her friend recently referred to Michelle Obama as a "ape in high heels", which is beyond repugnant and obviously racist (which the idiot woman who stated the "ape" comment subsequently denied was racist - talk about chutzpah).

In any event, there are racist/sexist social media trolls who will ridiculously take the notion I'm bringing up to an extreme, where they try to downplay (or negate) irrefutable instances of racism or sexism. I don't want to empower their "cause" in any way, shape or form by simply bringing the subject of nuance to the table. Nor do I think that sexism/racism has to be extremely obvious; it can certainly manifest in very subtle ways. Just wanted to make my thoughts clear on that.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 02:42:32 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1959 on: November 15, 2016, 05:09:50 PM »



  The e-mails of Wasserman-Schulz provide solid evidence the DNC was in collusion with Team Clinton. Likewise Donna Brazile in her capacity as CNN analyst feeding Team Clinton the debate questions. Did Sanders get any favors from these people? Nope.
Close only matters in horse-shoes (and some other things, of course) but not the election of the Democratic nominee.
Can you prove collusion and can you prove it affected votes?
Sanders chose to work outside of a party structure for most of his career and much of his campaign. That's not the DNC's doing.

Regarding Donna Brazile, do you think that Clinton's answer about the water in Flint had an impact on the election or the nomination. Do you think that her amazing answer based on that super surprising question tilted the nomination in her favor?
Do you also assume that Sanders didn't have media allies? Did you get to read alll of his emails to ensure that?



Emily, while nobody can unquestionably prove that Wasserman-Schultz or Brazile's actions affected votes (I certainly wouldn't say those actions alone cost Hillary the election, but were IMO certainly a contributing factor), one thing seems pretty clear to me. Hillary NOT completely distancing herself from Wasserman-Schultz IMMEDIATELY after Wasserman-Schultz's corruption was proven was a huge problem, and a giant hit to Hillary's credibility.  
I agree that the popularly accepted interpretation of those actions affected votes, certainly. As did Clinton not distancing herself from Wasserman-Schultz.
I have not seen this proof of which you speak and I think without proof it shouldn't have been a hit to Clinton's credibility, nor should it have affected votes.

Literally right after the DNC was forced to apologize for behind-the-scenes corruption, and to apologize for the emails proving Hillary's cronies were conspiring to find ways to use Bernie's Judaism against him in certain states (side note: can you imagine for one moment how people would have reacted if the shoe was on the other foot, with proven emails showing Bernie having DNC cronies who were trying to use Hillary's gender against her?), Hillary gave her old pal Debbie an honorary position on her campaign.
Do you have evidence that that one email that nobody acted upon was written by a member of "Hillary's cronies"?

I don't care if anyone wants to minimize what Debbie's honorary position was on the campaign; the fact is that Hillary's statement showed not even a smidge of disappointment at Debbie's unethical corruption. Even if Debbie is Hillary's friend, and she wants to help a friend out (a human emotion I can understand and empathize with), Hillary nevertheless acted in a very, VERY foolish manner. It's not about how important (or not) the honorary position was. It's about the principle of the matter.
Perhaps Clinton was acting on the principle that she should stand by her friend who was being wrongly villainized. Clinton could probably sympathize with that.

The rest of your post is based on an unproven premise. Just because everyone believes something doesn't mean it's true.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 05:32:22 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1960 on: November 15, 2016, 05:18:26 PM »


Frankly, anyone who asserts that they are absolutely not misogynist is suspect because I don't believe anyone raised in our world is absolutely not misogynist.

Does that mean that every single person in the world (men, women, trans folks, LGBTQ) is a misogynist?
I wouldn't say a misogynist because that implies a totality. But yes, every single person in the world has misogynistic views.
And does that mean that every woman in the world cannot ever be criticized without risk (by the person doing the criticism) that they will be fingered as a misogynist?
Of course not. But if the person criticizing the woman is doing so with a double standard that they haven't applied to the many men who have been in the same position as the woman, I think that indicates misogyny.

 Should people have that fear?
No. No one should fear having their misogyny pointed out. I don't. I find it an opportunity to learn and examine myself.
I agree that people should have an omnipresent awareness that perhaps their views on case-by-case topics are being shaped by societal conditioning, and I believe *to a point* that this is ALWAYS the case; I don't think that is a bad thing to be aware of, yet it has to remain a "perhaps" in each case. My question is when does that educated knowledge turn into walking on eggshells, and when does that eventually lead to people being muzzled for fear of repercussions. And if that muzzling is perhaps what some people ultimately desire.

I truly want to understand this point of view. Certainly not trying to pick a fight, but I feel this is a very important topic for people to be having intelligent discourse about at this point in time.

If someone feels deeply in their heart that a woman is worthy of criticism over some (or an accumulation of many) action(s), do they have to fear repercussions for ever voicing their point of view, simply by someone declaring they are being misogynist? I absolutely agree that misogyny remains a huge, huge problem in the world, and in our country, not one morsel of doubt about it. My fear is that if we do away with nuance, then we will have kangaroo courts of public opinion where someone can be accused of being misogynist, and all it takes is for one person to make that accusation, and it's true. IMO it *has* to be a case-by-case thing.

What if a hypothetical woman, who - let's say for the sake of argument - you believe personally mistreated you and acted arrogantly to you (your perception of matters)... does this mean if you criticized them for that, or called them out as being arrogant, then all it takes is that one declaration of misogyny by someone else to make the misogyny qualification absolutely, unquestionably true?

I should add to all this: all one need to do is look at social media to see the amount of nincompoops who have been trolling since Trump's win, trying to espouse the view of minimizing things like sexism and racism. Despite a video of a black veteran being harassed for being accused of not being a real veteran, he shamefully had his food taken away by a moron manager at Chili's, which seems to obviously be a racially-motivated incident, being that it started with another customer (who leveled the accusation) instigating a conversation about whether black veterans were allowed in WWII. Also, the West Virginia mayor and her friend recently referred to Michelle Obama as a "ape in high heels", which is beyond repugnant and obviously racist (which the idiot woman who stated the "ape" comment subsequently denied was racist - talk about chutzpah).

In any event, there are racist/sexist social media trolls who will ridiculously take the notion I'm bringing up to an extreme, where they try to downplay (or negate) irrefutable instances of racism or sexism. I don't want to empower their "cause" in any way, shape or form by simply bringing the subject of nuance to the table. Nor do I think that sexism/racism has to be extremely obvious; it can certainly manifest in very subtle ways. Just wanted to make my thoughts clear on that.

I think my above answers answer the rest of this: yes - we have all absorbed misogynist attitudes. No, that doesn't mean women should not be criticized. No, we should not fear having it pointed out when we are applying double-standards or in other ways expressing misogyny.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2016, 05:20:21 PM by Emily » Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1961 on: November 15, 2016, 05:43:40 PM »

  There should be no place in the White House for the likes of Steve Bannon.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 04:43:06 AM by Moon Dawg » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1962 on: November 15, 2016, 06:01:28 PM »

Here's a little story:
When I was in high school I played lacrosse. My senior year I was talking with a friend about whether we'd play in college, or something like that. I said something, in reference to college, about the "girl's lacrosse team." She responded emphatically "women. Women's lacrosse team." I said something along the lines of "what, suddenly next year we're women? Whatever." She got mad and left - I was going to say "flounced out" but I have to think about whether I'd use that term for a man - see? That's what I do all the time and it's hard, but it's the right thing to do.
I didn't think much more about it until the next late summer, early fall, when I was at matriculation. Some dean or something gave a speech in which he referred to the young men entering the college. Later, in the same speech, he mentioned the girls in attendance.
Then I was studying ancient Chinese history, reading an oldish (1970s I think) text. It blabbed about "ancient Chinese man" and how "he" did this and that. In my mind, I corrected it to "people" and figured that's what he meant. Especially as there was reference to a variety of activities in which we would assume everyone took part. Then there was the clause "and he adorned his women with...[baubles of some sort]"
I started noticing all the little discrepancies in the language everywhere. When I was in the army, I noticed that in the all-male battalions, the word "men" was used a lot. But in the mixed-sex battalions, they used "males and females." I did some research, looking back at military texts and published speeches. I noticed they used "men" and "girls" until people objected. Then in the contexts in which they would have said "men" and "girls" they switched it to "males" and "females" rather than "men" and "women" but retained "men" when no women were involved. When I worked in Texas, I noticed in the (very good old boy) oil and gas industry that, for the off-shore platforms that were mixed sex, they do the same thing - "males" and "females" but if they are all-male - "men." Like they are afraid to grant adulthood to women.
This is just one category - the naming of people. There is sexism and misogyny in tiny little things around us all the time. No one can possibly have blocked it all out every moment of their life, unless they've been in an isolated cell. TV commercials, movies and TV shows, who are our presidents and CEOs? Who's in congress? Who's the police chief? Who's the governor or mayor? Who is most likely to be one's boss? Who do we learn about in history lessons? Who are the leaders of foreign countries? What were the roles of your parents? Who wears make-up? Who gets more plastic surgery? Who is more likely to kill the other? Who is depicted screaming more in horror movies? Who wears debilitating footwear? Who sits legs-spread vs. who sits legs-crossed? What are gendered insults for women? (b*tch, c*nt, wh*re) What are gendered insults for men? (p*ssy, b*tch, mangina are among them).
It's everywhere and we've all absorbed it.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1963 on: November 16, 2016, 10:05:15 AM »

Both W Post and NYT have opinion pieces today (by women, if that matters to anyone, not that I think it decides matters) on whether sexism was the primary cause of Clinton's loss. In case anyone wants to read those writers' opinions.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Forrest Gump
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


View Profile
« Reply #1964 on: November 16, 2016, 10:47:09 AM »

for those who think their saviour can do no wrong. this ain't rocket science people. from bill the man himself....


https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/c79b7ec2-5ee8-3a47-99fa-63ea467099cf/ss_ed-klein%3A-bill-clinton%3A.html

Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1965 on: November 16, 2016, 11:07:33 AM »

For those who think anyone viewed Clinton as a savior, lol.

For those who believe anyone, especially a politician, is a savior, double-lol.

For those who give undue credence to an explicitly conservative outlet's anonymously single-sourced (juicy) story about its opponent, triple-lol.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1966 on: November 16, 2016, 11:12:47 AM »

For those who think anyone viewed Clinton as a savior, lol.

For those who believe anyone, especially a politician, is a savior, double-lol.

For those who give undue credence to an explicitly conservative outlet's anonymously single-sourced (juicy) story about its opponent, triple-lol.

LOL times infinity
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8142



View Profile
« Reply #1967 on: November 16, 2016, 11:24:44 AM »

The captain needs an Internet column, sure beats breitbart! Cool Guy
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Online Online

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1968 on: November 16, 2016, 11:28:52 AM »

Man, ANYTHING beats breitbart...except the Cleveland Browns, as they can't beat NOBODY
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8142



View Profile
« Reply #1969 on: November 16, 2016, 11:33:26 AM »

Billybart LOL
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1970 on: November 16, 2016, 11:38:15 AM »

Unfortunately breitbart is far from alone. The lower bar for entry the internet provides coupled with such intense divisiveness means there are innumerable propaganda sites masquerading as journalism. And this is not a partisan or ideological condemnation.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8541



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1971 on: November 16, 2016, 12:36:10 PM »

gosh. how hard id it to figure out. people had enough of obozo's programs the past 8 years. clinton offered no change, she was going to continue obummer's crap. if she offered solutions she easily would have won. fact is, she had no solutions. the silent majority, middle class WORKING people, were/are fed up with oblamer's proghrams and their cost...obamacare, immagration, and the  cost of welfare (and having to support the 47% who are getting a free ride). they are the reason clinton lost. they got trump elected. libturds did not count of them to show up in the numbers they did. they decided the election. clinton didn't want 'em. so she lost. end of story. all who want their freebies here are upset cause they may now lose them. hope so. i have to WORK for what i have.

I'd like to know how January's inauguration speech leaked so early.........
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1972 on: November 16, 2016, 03:43:51 PM »

gosh. how hard id it to figure out. people had enough of obozo's programs the past 8 years. clinton offered no change, she was going to continue obummer's crap. if she offered solutions she easily would have won. fact is, she had no solutions. the silent majority, middle class WORKING people, were/are fed up with oblamer's proghrams and their cost...obamacare, immagration, and the  cost of welfare (and having to support the 47% who are getting a free ride). they are the reason clinton lost. they got trump elected. libturds did not count of them to show up in the numbers they did. they decided the election. clinton didn't want 'em. so she lost. end of story. all who want their freebies here are upset cause they may now lose them. hope so. i have to WORK for what i have.

I hadn't noticed this post until HeyJude quoted it, and I am glad CSM already clearly refuted it. I want to respond to it--to Forrest Gump directly, actually--from a different angle.

This post of yours lived up to many liberals' worst ideas of conservatives and/or Republican voters. When you write something full of spelling and grammatical errors and childish insults, you're not going to be taken remotely seriously. You might get a few "yeah, go get 'em!" responses from people on your "team," but what good is that? When large minorities of Americans voted for Clinton, and slightly fewer Americans voted for Trump, how can you keep a straight face with your apparent attempts at liberal-bashing silliness?

America does not need people huddling in their corners making straw men to tear down with prepackaged insults. It's childish, it's stupid, and it's fruitless. America needs people who are willing to find the best arguments their political opponents have and either agree with them or beat them with better arguments. It needs people who are willing to find areas of common ground. It needs people who can remain civil even when they disagree over specifics, assuming the other person isn't an idiot or a malevolent actor, but someone with more or less similar goals but a different idea on how to reach them. In all seriousness, do you really think the average Joe Liberal and Jane Conservative doesn't share the same basic hopes of things like peace and prosperity? That they don't all want a stable and growing economy, security from enemies without and within, protection of individual liberties to generally live without threat from fellow citizens or government? Do you really think that?

Lastly, the "all who want their freebies" line is just absurd. I pay every cent I owe in taxes and probably more, because I'm too lazy and semi-socially anxious to hire a professional to do it for me. So I do it online, even though I probably shouldn't. I make a living that puts me in a very good place; Republican tax changes would almost certainly benefit me. I don't want freebies, I want a good society. I came from a relatively poor family that had government assistance in my childhood: free school lunches, a government loan for our house, and even government food subsidies in my early childhood, though I don't remember them. Every single one of my siblings went on to graduate from college and earn a decent-to-good living. I want other people to have the same options, and I'm glad to pay for it. My family humbly and thankfully accepted benefits, and went on to pay them forward. And this was no liberal crew: I am the one and only leftie in the bunch, while the rest tend to be pretty conservative in most ways.

Conversely, how is it that you're not railing against the wealthy who "want their freebies?" Low or no taxes under guise of "job creation" when their interest has been proved by the consistently growing economy and often-record profits NOT JOB CREATION, BUT PERSONAL PROFITS. Letting the rich avoid taxes does not create jobs, typically, because jobs are just another expense to them. These are not philanthropists who want to add a few hundred thousand to the company payroll: they are capitalists who want to pay as little as nothing--down to zero if possible--on labor, just as they want to pay little or nothing on everything else, because that's how capitalism works. Those people seek freebies FAR MORE than the poor. Those people have access to lawmakers, who--surprise, surprise--write laws and regulations in their favor. Almost. Every. Time. When they take advantage, we ALL say "that's just business." Or "under the circumstances, that's just smart." Well then isn't it smart for the poor to take advantage, too? Especially since they tend to need it?

But lest I be misunderstood, don't overstate anything: I'm not opposed to some capitalist principles at all. Hard work should be rewarded. Innovation should be rewarded. Demand for a product or service, well, you deserve something from that, especially compared to the (rare) couch potato who literally won't get off his ass to put in a day's work. But most poor people I know--and most poor people I've ever known--are not that rare couch potato. Most people find dignity in work. They believe in hard work. And sometimes life just fucks them. Maybe their company decided to trim yet another layer of middle managers; maybe their company left the region for another state or country; maybe they've been replaced by a computer or a robot. And maybe, quite possibly, their new job exists, but has no benefits--allows up to only 31.5 hours.week to avoid any hint of benefits!--and pays minimum wage. Well, ain't life grand? We can say "f*** those losers and the other 46.9999%," or we can be decent human beings and agree that "there but for the grace of God go I." Funny how people tend to be pretty forgiving of those in their own families or communities who hit hard times, but so suspicious and downright nasty toward "them."

That was too long a post and I know nobody cares anyway. But let's sum up with that great piece of political and social philosophy, as eloquently stated by Joe Pesci's character Nicky Santoro in Casino: "Be fuckin' nice."

It's not that hard. Civil conversation. Empathy. Commonality. Honest debate without petty name-calling that would get your middle-schooler sent to the office.

 
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 04:11:07 PM by the captain » Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #1973 on: November 16, 2016, 10:39:49 PM »

gosh. how hard id it to figure out. people had enough of obozo's programs the past 8 years. clinton offered no change, she was going to continue obummer's crap. if she offered solutions she easily would have won. fact is, she had no solutions. the silent majority, middle class WORKING people, were/are fed up with oblamer's proghrams and their cost...obamacare, immagration, and the  cost of welfare (and having to support the 47% who are getting a free ride). they are the reason clinton lost. they got trump elected. libturds did not count of them to show up in the numbers they did. they decided the election. clinton didn't want 'em. so she lost. end of story. all who want their freebies here are upset cause they may now lose them. hope so. i have to WORK for what i have.

Who let Bean Bag back on the Board?
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
LostArt
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 914



View Profile
« Reply #1974 on: November 17, 2016, 04:04:52 AM »

gosh. how hard id it to figure out. people had enough of obozo's programs the past 8 years. clinton offered no change, she was going to continue obummer's crap. if she offered solutions she easily would have won. fact is, she had no solutions. the silent majority, middle class WORKING people, were/are fed up with oblamer's proghrams and their cost...obamacare, immagration, and the  cost of welfare (and having to support the 47% who are getting a free ride). they are the reason clinton lost. they got trump elected. libturds did not count of them to show up in the numbers they did. they decided the election. clinton didn't want 'em. so she lost. end of story. all who want their freebies here are upset cause they may now lose them. hope so. i have to WORK for what i have.

I hadn't noticed this post until HeyJude quoted it, and I am glad CSM already clearly refuted it. I want to respond to it--to Forrest Gump directly, actually--from a different angle.

This post of yours lived up to many liberals' worst ideas of conservatives and/or Republican voters. When you write something full of spelling and grammatical errors and childish insults, you're not going to be taken remotely seriously. You might get a few "yeah, go get 'em!" responses from people on your "team," but what good is that? When large minorities of Americans voted for Clinton, and slightly fewer Americans voted for Trump, how can you keep a straight face with your apparent attempts at liberal-bashing silliness?

America does not need people huddling in their corners making straw men to tear down with prepackaged insults. It's childish, it's stupid, and it's fruitless. America needs people who are willing to find the best arguments their political opponents have and either agree with them or beat them with better arguments. It needs people who are willing to find areas of common ground. It needs people who can remain civil even when they disagree over specifics, assuming the other person isn't an idiot or a malevolent actor, but someone with more or less similar goals but a different idea on how to reach them. In all seriousness, do you really think the average Joe Liberal and Jane Conservative doesn't share the same basic hopes of things like peace and prosperity? That they don't all want a stable and growing economy, security from enemies without and within, protection of individual liberties to generally live without threat from fellow citizens or government? Do you really think that?

Lastly, the "all who want their freebies" line is just absurd. I pay every cent I owe in taxes and probably more, because I'm too lazy and semi-socially anxious to hire a professional to do it for me. So I do it online, even though I probably shouldn't. I make a living that puts me in a very good place; Republican tax changes would almost certainly benefit me. I don't want freebies, I want a good society. I came from a relatively poor family that had government assistance in my childhood: free school lunches, a government loan for our house, and even government food subsidies in my early childhood, though I don't remember them. Every single one of my siblings went on to graduate from college and earn a decent-to-good living. I want other people to have the same options, and I'm glad to pay for it. My family humbly and thankfully accepted benefits, and went on to pay them forward. And this was no liberal crew: I am the one and only leftie in the bunch, while the rest tend to be pretty conservative in most ways.

Conversely, how is it that you're not railing against the wealthy who "want their freebies?" Low or no taxes under guise of "job creation" when their interest has been proved by the consistently growing economy and often-record profits NOT JOB CREATION, BUT PERSONAL PROFITS. Letting the rich avoid taxes does not create jobs, typically, because jobs are just another expense to them. These are not philanthropists who want to add a few hundred thousand to the company payroll: they are capitalists who want to pay as little as nothing--down to zero if possible--on labor, just as they want to pay little or nothing on everything else, because that's how capitalism works. Those people seek freebies FAR MORE than the poor. Those people have access to lawmakers, who--surprise, surprise--write laws and regulations in their favor. Almost. Every. Time. When they take advantage, we ALL say "that's just business." Or "under the circumstances, that's just smart." Well then isn't it smart for the poor to take advantage, too? Especially since they tend to need it?

But lest I be misunderstood, don't overstate anything: I'm not opposed to some capitalist principles at all. Hard work should be rewarded. Innovation should be rewarded. Demand for a product or service, well, you deserve something from that, especially compared to the (rare) couch potato who literally won't get off his ass to put in a day's work. But most poor people I know--and most poor people I've ever known--are not that rare couch potato. Most people find dignity in work. They believe in hard work. And sometimes life just fucks them. Maybe their company decided to trim yet another layer of middle managers; maybe their company left the region for another state or country; maybe they've been replaced by a computer or a robot. And maybe, quite possibly, their new job exists, but has no benefits--allows up to only 31.5 hours.week to avoid any hint of benefits!--and pays minimum wage. Well, ain't life grand? We can say "f*** those losers and the other 46.9999%," or we can be decent human beings and agree that "there but for the grace of God go I." Funny how people tend to be pretty forgiving of those in their own families or communities who hit hard times, but so suspicious and downright nasty toward "them."
That was too long a post and I know nobody cares anyway. But let's sum up with that great piece of political and social philosophy, as eloquently stated by Joe Pesci's character Nicky Santoro in Casino: "Be fuckin' nice."

It's not that hard. Civil conversation. Empathy. Commonality. Honest debate without petty name-calling that would get your middle-schooler sent to the office.

Excellent post. 



   

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 1.267 seconds with 21 queries.