|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 1, 2016 6:15:21 GMT
It's the undecided voters who are up for grabs. Yes, and the heavy-handed, insulting and condescending approach isn't going to win your (general you) candidate any more votes. It's beyond irritating when someone on either side of the aisle starts parroting the kind of crap that was in that article in the OP. Both parties suck. They both work for the same corporations and lobbyists. We're screwed no matter who wins. You should be used to the "crap" by now; it's part of every election, unfortunately. I don't see any changes to our election circus coming any time soon. And if you're this irritated now, I can't imagine what you'll be like by November.  I was trying to remember what elections were like when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's. My memory may be faulty, but I don't remember it being nearly this bad, although there were lots of yard signs and ads. And. Presidential campaigns have gotten nasty for years; the difference seems to be that we're exposed to it constantly now. And it shows.  |
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Jul 1, 2016 11:02:07 GMT
Yes, and the heavy-handed, insulting and condescending approach isn't going to win your (general you) candidate any more votes. It's beyond irritating when someone on either side of the aisle starts parroting the kind of crap that was in that article in the OP. Both parties suck. They both work for the same corporations and lobbyists. We're screwed no matter who wins. You should be used to the "crap" by now; it's part of every election, unfortunately. I don't see any changes to our election circus coming any time soon. And if you're this irritated now, I can't imagine what you'll be like by November. I was trying to remember what elections were like when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's. My memory may be faulty, but I don't remember it being nearly this bad, although there were lots of yard signs and ads. And. Presidential campaigns have gotten nasty for ears; the difference seems to be that we're exposed to it constantly now. And it shows. Election have been dirty since almost the beginning, at least now we don't have people beating each other on the floor of the senate or challenging them to a dual. Since the beginning of parties there has always been lies told about the other. The election now are just like they have always been |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 1, 2016 11:18:14 GMT
You should be used to the "crap" by now; it's part of every election, unfortunately. I don't see any changes to our election circus coming any time soon. And if you're this irritated now, I can't imagine what you'll be like by November. I was trying to remember what elections were like when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's. My memory may be faulty, but I don't remember it being nearly this bad, although there were lots of yard signs and ads. And. Presidential campaigns have gotten nasty for ears; the difference seems to be that we're exposed to it constantly now. And it shows. Election have been dirty since almost the beginning, at least now we don't have people beating each other on the floor of the senate or challenging them to a dual. Since the beginning of parties there has always been lies told about the other. The election now are just like they have always been I really think that the difference is the availability of media. 24 hour news saturates us with information. In the past, you read info in the paper and when I was young, you waited for the 6 or 11 o'clock news. Yes, American elections have always been dirty and at times violent. The only difference now is our near constant exposure. What I can't remember is the length of election cycles. Now they seem to go on forever and I wonder how long they were in the 50's and 60's. I really understand the need to sometimes tune it all out. |
|
|
|
Post by blondiec47 on Jul 1, 2016 11:46:18 GMT
Election have been dirty since almost the beginning, at least now we don't have people beating each other on the floor of the senate or challenging them to a dual. Since the beginning of parties there has always been lies told about the other. The election now are just like they have always been I really think that the difference is the availability of media. 24 hour news saturates us with information. In the past, you read info in the paper and when I was young, you waited for the 6 or 11 o'clock news. Yes, American elections have always been dirty and at times violent. The only difference now is our near constant exposure. What I can't remember is the length of election cycles. Now they seem to go on forever and I wonder how long they were in the 50's and 60's. I really understand the need to sometimes tune it all out. Oh I do agree with you in regards to the media. It also doesn't help that in their rush to be first with the story the facts seem to be of little importance. It also distresses me that many people vote based on what they see in the media and the TV commercials. |
|
sweetpeasmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,592 
|
Post by sweetpeasmom on Jul 1, 2016 13:15:33 GMT
If I were drinking Diet Coke, I would have snorted it all over the keyboard. Does she even speak? Actually, yes she does. She speaks very well and the few interviews I've seen by her seemed rather well spoken. Save |
|
|
|
Post by megop on Jul 1, 2016 13:56:09 GMT
Man, I read this thread and feel like I've just entered a time warp!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Jul 1, 2016 14:45:15 GMT
If I were drinking Diet Coke, I would have snorted it all over the keyboard. Does she even speak? Before I assume anything, may I ask what you are implying? |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 1, 2016 15:50:21 GMT
It's the undecided voters who are up for grabs. Yes, and the heavy-handed, insulting and condescending approach isn't going to win your (general you) candidate any more votes. It's beyond irritating when someone on either side of the aisle starts parroting the kind of crap that was in that article in the OP. Both parties suck. They both work for the same corporations and lobbyists. We're screwed no matter who wins. In fact, this attitude is measurable in today's Rasmussen Report where we see Trump with a lead on Clinton - 43% to 39%. But as @ilovecookies points out, "they both work for the same corporations and lobbyists". We're not electing a president, we're electing a sock puppet in presidential clothing. The power behind the office never changes which is why Obama looks like Bush looks like Clinton looks like Bush...back and back until at least JFK. So the question this election is, what do you want your Presidential Sock Puppet to look like? It's pretty much aesthetics as this point.  or  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 8:13:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 16:27:29 GMT
Yes, and the heavy-handed, insulting and condescending approach isn't going to win your (general you) candidate any more votes. It's beyond irritating when someone on either side of the aisle starts parroting the kind of crap that was in that article in the OP. Both parties suck. They both work for the same corporations and lobbyists. We're screwed no matter who wins. You should be used to the "crap" by now; it's part of every election, unfortunately. I don't see any changes to our election circus coming any time soon. And if you're this irritated now, I can't imagine what you'll be like by November. I was trying to remember what elections were like when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's. My memory may be faulty, but I don't remember it being nearly this bad, although there were lots of yard signs and ads. And. Presidential campaigns have gotten nasty for ears; the difference seems to be that we're exposed to it constantly now. And it shows. I completely agree with you about the 24 hr. news cycle, the media, and the length of the election cycle. Oh, I'm used to to the crap, but I have bouts of intense irritation with it all. LOL about what I'll be like in November. Stabby and PEA LIVID is one possibility  , but more than likely I'll just be resigned to the fact that no matter who wins, we're all going to be the losers. I've said to krazyscrapper before that things like calling all Trump voters stupid is just wrong, and does nothing but cause more friction and animosity. Her remarks about the article in this thread are, IMO, even worse. Those kinds of tactics are what made me abandon all hope for the GOP, and they're certainly not going to convince Trump opposers who are struggling with whether to vote for Clinton or go third party. That was the main source of my irritation in this thread. But yeah, I know the pea drill. It's only going to get worse up until November 8. Yippee |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 8:13:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 16:30:48 GMT
You should have just stopped with every action has a reaction. You posted a sarcastic, rude article. If you can't at least acknowledge that fact, which was the actual CONTENT of my initial comment - which clearly you have forgotten: and then fail to acknowledge the fact that YOU started the personal insults - but clearly the fact that I mentioned meeting the former president is oh so condescending to you - grow up. You really don't like that article do you? Yes Paul Waldman was sarcastic but there was nothing rude about what he suggests in his article. But look how you responded to one part of the article. You totally dismissed what Waldman said on how this meeting would be viewed by some others. Because you think you KNOW what happened. Well no you don't know what happened on that plane or what Bill Clinton was thinking when he decided to visit the plane despite meeting him twice. I don't know what Clinton's thinking was or what happened on the plane and neither does Paul Waldman. The only ones who know what happened are the individuals involved. The rest is pure speculation. However, if I'm reading your posts correctly, you are convinced that Bill Clinton planned this meeting and that Loretta Lynch said "they PRIMARILY talked about social niceties" with the after comment "quite the lawyer isn't she". Now I take that last part to mean Loretta Lynch was being less then honest. Maybe but I don't know the woman and I wasn't there so I don't know. But what doesn't make sense to me is why Bill Clinton would have any type of conversation with the sitting AG about his wife in front of other people in a public, meaning reporters were around, place. Other people and reporters are the key words here. What I didn't know was Bill Clinton appointed Loretta Lynch to the judgeship in NY until this morning when I heard it on the news. That being the case how about this scenario. Bill Clinton knowing Loretta Lynch's plane was coming to the airport where he was at. Maybe he was killing time until he his plane could leave or (gasp) he decided to stick around a bit to say hi and show her pictures of his new grandson. As simple as that. There are two things I have learned over the years. Never try and change a bride's mind when it comes to items for her wedding. And be prepared to listen to grandparents talk a lot about their newest grandchild to people they know. But it's pure speculation because none of us were there and that includes folks like you who are convinced you know what happened because well because you met the president twice therefore that makes you an expert on Bill Clinton and his behavior. The fact that you met President Clinton is nice. It really is. What is rather childish is to imply that because you met the president twice you know just know what he is going to do. Hate to burst your bubble here but I suspect just about now there are a whole bunch of people who know Bill Clinton better and a lot longer than you wondering what he is going to do next. But what I still find interesting is your over blown response to an opinion piece. Usually a "I don't agree with this crap" response does it. Hmm I'm beginning think he hit a nerve. Which is proof he wrote a good article. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 8:13:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 16:32:00 GMT
Yes, and the heavy-handed, insulting and condescending approach isn't going to win your (general you) candidate any more votes. It's beyond irritating when someone on either side of the aisle starts parroting the kind of crap that was in that article in the OP. Both parties suck. They both work for the same corporations and lobbyists. We're screwed no matter who wins. In fact, this attitude is measurable in today's Rasmussen Report where we see Trump with a lead on Clinton - 43% to 39%. But as @ilovecookies points out, "they both work for the same corporations and lobbyists". We're not electing a president, we're electing a sock puppet in presidential clothing. The power behind the office never changes which is why Obama looks like Bush looks like Clinton looks like Bush...back and back until at least JFK. So the question this election is, what do you want your Presidential Sock Puppet to look like? It's pretty much aesthetics as this point. or @the sock puppets. I am decidedly anti mangled, apricot hellbeast, but I have to say that Hillary sock puppet is downright frightening! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 8:13:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 16:35:54 GMT
 That is some seriously twisted logic. Westboro Baptist Church hits nerves with what they write. Do they write good stuff? Trump hits nerves with things he says. Is he a good speaker? You seem way more worked up and frothy than Darcy does, krazy. 
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 1, 2016 16:57:57 GMT
You should be used to the "crap" by now; it's part of every election, unfortunately. I don't see any changes to our election circus coming any time soon. And if you're this irritated now, I can't imagine what you'll be like by November. I was trying to remember what elections were like when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's. My memory may be faulty, but I don't remember it being nearly this bad, although there were lots of yard signs and ads. And. Presidential campaigns have gotten nasty for ears; the difference seems to be that we're exposed to it constantly now. And it shows. I completely agree with you about the 24 hr. news cycle, the media, and the length of the election cycle. Oh, I'm used to to the crap, but I have bouts of intense irritation with it all. LOL about what I'll be like in November. Stabby and PEA LIVID is one possibility , but more than likely I'll just be resigned to the fact that no matter who wins, we're all going to be the losers. I've said to krazyscrapper before that things like calling all Trump voters stupid is just wrong, and does nothing but cause more friction and animosity. Her remarks about the article in this thread are, IMO, even worse. Those kinds of tactics are what made me abandon all hope for the GOP, and they're certainly not going to convince Trump opposers who are struggling with whether to vote for Clinton or go third party. That was the main source of my irritation in this thread. But yeah, I know the pea drill. It's only going to get worse up until November 8. Yippee It reminds me of that Bette Davis quote; I can't think of the name of the movie right now:". Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy night." We will all be feeling stabby by November.  |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 1, 2016 17:02:18 GMT
I completely agree with you about the 24 hr. news cycle, the media, and the length of the election cycle. Oh, I'm used to to the crap, but I have bouts of intense irritation with it all. LOL about what I'll be like in November. Stabby and PEA LIVID is one possibility , but more than likely I'll just be resigned to the fact that no matter who wins, we're all going to be the losers. I've said to krazyscrapper before that things like calling all Trump voters stupid is just wrong, and does nothing but cause more friction and animosity. Her remarks about the article in this thread are, IMO, even worse. Those kinds of tactics are what made me abandon all hope for the GOP, and they're certainly not going to convince Trump opposers who are struggling with whether to vote for Clinton or go third party. That was the main source of my irritation in this thread. But yeah, I know the pea drill. It's only going to get worse up until November 8. Yippee It reminds me of that Bette Davis quote; I can't think of the name of the movie right now:". Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy night." We will all be feeling stabby by November. "All about Eve"  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 8:13:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 17:05:51 GMT
Love that movie  |
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on Jul 1, 2016 17:07:11 GMT
In fact, this attitude is measurable in today's Rasmussen Report where we see Trump with a lead on Clinton - 43% to 39%. But as @ilovecookies points out, "they both work for the same corporations and lobbyists". We're not electing a president, we're electing a sock puppet in presidential clothing. The power behind the office never changes which is why Obama looks like Bush looks like Clinton looks like Bush...back and back until at least JFK. So the question this election is, what do you want your Presidential Sock Puppet to look like? It's pretty much aesthetics as this point. or @the sock puppets. I am decidedly anti mangled, apricot hellbeast, but I have to say that Hillary sock puppet is downright frightening! And the mouth is all wrong on the Trump one. Where's the angry duckface? |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 1, 2016 17:15:10 GMT
It reminds me of that Bette Davis quote; I can't think of the name of the movie right now:". Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy night." We will all be feeling stabby by November. "All about Eve" Yes! What a great movie! |
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 1, 2016 17:45:03 GMT
I think MizIndependent has the right idea, they may be angling for a special prosecutor. www.politico.com/story/2016/07/loretta-lynch-clinton-email-probe-225016
It seems that Bill held his plane over specifically to meet with Lynch. The press was told no photos, it was intended to be a very private meeting except a local news guy had good sources at the airport. Lynch could have easily said "Bill, it's nice to see you, but a private meeting would be inappropriate right now." If the woman is smart enough to have the job of AG, she's smart enough and strong enough to be able to utter those words to Bill Clinton or anyone else. But she didn't.
This Chicago Tribune Reporter has another take on the meeting: www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-kass-0701-20160630-column.html
Hillary really doesn't want her e-mails revealed. Now they are saying they can't release them for over 2 years. That's okay, it seems Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is going to help her out a bit later this year by releasing more of her e-mails. You know, from the "secure server" that wasn't breached.
The stench of deceit and corruption follows the Clintons like toilet paper stuck to her shoe. You don't have to look far to find it. The AP is now reporting that there are several key entries missing from her calendar - meetings with Wall Street types who donated to her Foundation after their meetings with her. The Pay to Play coincidences while she was Secretary of State abound: check the New York Times, Forbes, the Atlantic and others. What worries me is that she is so open to blackmail because of past transactions, she would be very dangerous in the office of President. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 1, 2016 18:07:24 GMT
Just as the stench of deceit and corruption follows every single congressperson "bought and paid for" by the NRA (who are the largest contributors of elections by far) and other special interest groups.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 8:13:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 18:08:01 GMT
I totally agree that Lynch could and should have declined the meeting. I just can't watch that video, though. Can't do Bill O'Reilly. No matter how innocent that meeting might have been, it just leaves too much room for doubt. Can't decide if it was the stupidest or most arrogant move ever on the part of Bill. They're not rookies to all this, so I'm leaning towards incredibly arrogant.
I haven't read any opinion pieces on this at all (with the exception of the beginning of the article in the OP). I don't need to, so I'm not going to start now. Not matter what either side says, the fact that they met just looks bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by gulfcoastgirl on Jul 1, 2016 18:52:01 GMT
If I were drinking Diet Coke, I would have snorted it all over the keyboard. Does she even speak? Ya, she doing the speaking English for husband to being best president ever of US. |
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 1, 2016 19:06:02 GMT
Just as the stench of deceit and corruption follows every single congressperson "bought and paid for" by the NRA (who are the largest contributors of elections by far) and other special interest groups. The NRA has not held any offices like President (Bill) nor Secretary of State (Hillary). Don't like them? Vote against those in public office who have accepted donations from them. (Which are of public record, which have not been erased.) |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 1, 2016 20:15:28 GMT
Just as the stench of deceit and corruption follows every single congressperson "bought and paid for" by the NRA (who are the largest contributors of elections by far) and other special interest groups. The NRA has not held any offices like President (Bill) nor Secretary of State (Hillary). Don't like them? Vote against those in public office who have accepted donations from them. (Which are of public record, which have not been erased.) Congress often has more power than either of those offices. |
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,160
|
Post by lindas on Jul 1, 2016 20:47:28 GMT
The NRA has not held any offices like President (Bill) nor Secretary of State (Hillary). Don't like them? Vote against those in public office who have accepted donations from them. (Which are of public record, which have not been erased.) Congress often has more power than either of those offices. Not in the last 7+ years. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 8:13:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 21:19:34 GMT
Congress often has more power than either of those offices. Not in the last 7+ years. No, because they have been too concerned with sitting on their asses.....they would rather be known for what they AREN'T doing then what they have done.....what a legacy to have! |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 1, 2016 21:20:39 GMT
Congress often has more power than either of those offices. Not in the last 7+ years. Remind me again....who has dug in their heels and refused to do their job (again) ? In fact, they resort to OBSTRUCTING their work to get done! |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 1, 2016 21:24:05 GMT
Not in the last 7+ years. Remind me again....who has dug in their heels and refused to do their job (again) ? In fact, they resort to OBSTRUCTING their work to get done! The Republican Congress is full of assholes. I don't think anyone here disagrees with you on this point. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 1, 2016 21:35:51 GMT
Remind me again....who has dug in their heels and refused to do their job (again) ? In fact, they resort to OBSTRUCTING their work to get done! The Republican Congress is full of assholes. I don't think anyone here disagrees with you on this point. Right! It's frustrating! There is crap, dead weight, and bull shit on all sides of the coin. I'm just not feeling the need to have to be so toxic, venomous, and vitriolic in cutting down (us) voters because I don't happen to agree with someone else! The levels of almost forceful intensity that some have against the candidates is just crazy to me. |
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jul 1, 2016 22:24:50 GMT
If I were drinking Diet Coke, I would have snorted it all over the keyboard. Does she even speak? Ya, she doing the speaking English for husband to being best president ever of US. Racism is so ugly.
It may surprise you to learn that you are not superior to Melania Trump because English is your native language.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 19, 2024 8:13:27 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 22:32:46 GMT
I think MizIndependent has the right idea, they may be angling for a special prosecutor. www.politico.com/story/2016/07/loretta-lynch-clinton-email-probe-225016
It seems that Bill held his plane over specifically to meet with Lynch. The press was told no photos, it was intended to be a very private meeting except a local news guy had good sources at the airport. Lynch could have easily said "Bill, it's nice to see you, but a private meeting would be inappropriate right now." If the woman is smart enough to have the job of AG, she's smart enough and strong enough to be able to utter those words to Bill Clinton or anyone else. But she didn't.
This Chicago Tribune Reporter has another take on the meeting: www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-kass-0701-20160630-column.html
Hillary really doesn't want her e-mails revealed. Now they are saying they can't release them for over 2 years. That's okay, it seems Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is going to help her out a bit later this year by releasing more of her e-mails. You know, from the "secure server" that wasn't breached.
The stench of deceit and corruption follows the Clintons like toilet paper stuck to her shoe. You don't have to look far to find it. The AP is now reporting that there are several key entries missing from her calendar - meetings with Wall Street types who donated to her Foundation after their meetings with her. The Pay to Play coincidences while she was Secretary of State abound: check the New York Times, Forbes, the Atlantic and others. What worries me is that she is so open to blackmail because of past transactions, she would sbe very dangerous in the office of President. I think you and MizIndependent may be right. They Bill knew what he was doing, he's not stupid or ignorant of the rules. And for those saying the "right is making something out of nothing again", the DOJ's own guidelines, in the code of federal regulations, it specifically says it prohibits a DOJ employee, and that would include the Attorney General, from participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution if they have a personal or political relationship with the person or entity that is the subject of the investigation. And Bill may be a witness, so there's that. Loretta Lynch knows that, and as you said BeckyTech , if she's smart enough and strong enough to be the Attorney General, she's intelligent enough to know she should have not taken that meeting. And the way she characterized it in the press conference as if they were just passing each other in the terminal and stopped to say how are the grand kids and then moved along vs, the truth of it that Bill went out of his way to wait for her and they had a private meeting aboard a private plane, shows that she knew what they did was not only an ethics violation, but a violation of federal regulations. |
|
, but more than likely I'll just be resigned to the fact that no matter who wins, we're all going to be the losers. 
That is some seriously twisted logic. Westboro Baptist Church hits nerves with what they write. Do they write good stuff? Trump hits nerves with things he says. Is he a good speaker?
