MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Aug 3, 2016 16:13:50 GMT
Well, sorry that you feel that way. It isn't an insult to say that a person is disgruntled. And you ARE bitter. I was bitter for awhile in 08; I recognize it when I see it. It shows in every political post that you write. I believe we are all in the same, hole-riddled boat here, and again, I have never denied that I'm upset. I'm not surprised in the least that it comes through on my posts. BTW, have you ever heard "disgruntled" or "bitter" used in a complimentary tone? Neither have I. It is not true that Hillary is only honest 50% of the time. In fact, that's ridiculous. And I'm pretty sure that you know it. And frankly, many of your posts imply that anyone who supports her is a gullible fool. You can think that if you want, but don't pretend that your anti-Hillary posts don't convey a certain patronizing tone. They do. She can't stop lying, or would it be better put she can't seem to admit the truth? If you like, you can take this up with Politifact and The New York Times, who said, "PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, found 50 percent of the Clinton statements it examined to be either true or mostly true." Now, having said that, they also said (according to the same criteria) Sanders' statements were found to be 49% either true or mostly true. However, they rated only 9 of Sanders' statements and 120 of Hillary's so...take away from that what you will. Point is, I'm not pulling numbers out the air and calling them fact. You are no stranger to patronizing tones, mollycoddle . Just re-read your most recent responses to me. My tone was in reaction to yours in the first place. As for not giving credence to those who don't support her, obviously everyone has a right to their opinion and their vote. I DO believe that voting third party is throwing away your vote-but I would never deny every citizen's right to stay home, vote third party, or vote for Trump. I suggest that you reread your own posts again, because you sure as hell don't give credence to anyone who supports Hillary.. Here we mostly agree...except for that very last line. I do think that Hillary supporters really believe she is the best hope for our nation - but only in regards to the alternative: Trump. Really seriously hoping that the rumor mill is true and Trump is contemplating dropping out. The fact that the GOP leaders are currently exploring that option is encouraging.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 3, 2016 16:56:50 GMT
Well, sorry that you feel that way. It isn't an insult to say that a person is disgruntled. And you ARE bitter. I was bitter for awhile in 08; I recognize it when I see it. It shows in every political post that you write. I believe we are all in the same, hole-riddled boat here, and again, I have never denied that I'm upset. I'm not surprised in the least that it comes through on my posts. BTW, have you ever heard "disgruntled" or "bitter" used in a complimentary tone? Neither have I. It is not true that Hillary is only honest 50% of the time. In fact, that's ridiculous. And I'm pretty sure that you know it. And frankly, many of your posts imply that anyone who supports her is a gullible fool. You can think that if you want, but don't pretend that your anti-Hillary posts don't convey a certain patronizing tone. They do. She can't stop lying, or would it be better put she can't seem to admit the truth? If you like, you can take this up with Politifact and The New York Times, who said, "PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, found 50 percent of the Clinton statements it examined to be either true or mostly true." Now, having said that, they also said (according to the same criteria) Sanders' statements were found to be 49% either true or mostly true. However, they rated only 9 of Sanders' statements and 120 of Hillary's so...take away from that what you will. Point is, I'm not pulling numbers out the air and calling them fact. You are no stranger to patronizing tones, mollycoddle . Just re-read your most recent responses to me. My tone was in reaction to yours in the first place. As for not giving credence to those who don't support her, obviously everyone has a right to their opinion and their vote. I DO believe that voting third party is throwing away your vote-but I would never deny every citizen's right to stay home, vote third party, or vote for Trump. I suggest that you reread your own posts again, because you sure as hell don't give credence to anyone who supports Hillary.. Here we mostly agree...except for that very last line. I do think that Hillary supporters really believe she is the best hope for our nation - but only in regards to the alternative: Trump. Really seriously hoping that the rumor mill is true and Trump is contemplating dropping out. The fact that the GOP leaders are currently exploring that option is encouraging. It wasn't meant to be complimentary or insulting; it was meant to be an accurate description. You ARE angry and bitter; I was too in 08. I was disgruntled and bitter myself for awhile. And it wasn't fun. But I got over it. And if your feelings channel you into being more actively political, to make the changes that you want, it will in all likelihood end up being a good thing. As far as Hillary being truthful, Politifact also rated her to be relatively truthful compared to the other candidates. Does she shade the truth? Yep. They all do. Is that good? Nope. But that goes back to those fundamental changes that you (and I, frankly) would like to see happen in elections. The former editor of the NYT, Jill Abramson, who is no fan of Hillary, said that she is mostly truthful. Here is the article. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramsonKevin Drum from Mother Jones linked a chart just a couple of days ago that said that she was more truthful than the other candidates. I'll let you find that one. Honestly, I am voting because of the SC. Instead of Roe v.Wade being overturned, I would like for Citizens United overturned. There is a very good chance that if a Republican gets the WH, the next 40 years of important litigation will be affected. Voting rights, immigration, yada yada. And yeah, I can be patronizing. As can you. I don't want to get into a tit for tat like...well, I'm not going there. I don't agree with you that Trump dropping out would be a good thing. Certainly not for the SC. Who would they draft? Ryan? If he gets elected and has a Republican Congress, look for SS to be possibly privatized and cut, and possibly Medicare too. Look for more conservative SC Justices like Alito and Scalia. It would not be a good thing for the middle class at all. Or for voting rights or women's right to contraception and prenatal care. We can, however, agree to disagree- without either of us being patronizing.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Aug 3, 2016 17:27:06 GMT
As far as Hillary being truthful, Politifact also rated her to be relatively truthful compared to the other candidates. Does she shade the truth? Yep. They all do. Is that good? Nope. But that goes back to those fundamental changes that you (and I, frankly) would like to see happen in elections. The former editor of the NYT, Jill Abramson, who is no fan of Hillary, said that she is mostly truthful. Here is the article. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramsonKevin Drum from Mother Jones linked a chart just a couple of days ago that said that she was more truthful than the other candidates. I'll let you find that one. Honestly, I am voting because of the SC. Instead of Roe v.Wade being overturned, I would like for Citizens United overturned. There is a very good chance that if a Republican gets the WH, the next 40 years of important litigation will be affected. Voting rights, immigration, yada yada. And yeah, I can be patronizing. As can you. I don't want to get into a tit for tat like...well, I'm not going there. I don't agree with you that Trump dropping out would be a good thing. Certainly not for the SC. Who would they draft? Ryan? If he gets elected and has a Republican Congress, look for SS to be possibly privatized and cut, and possibly Medicare too. Look for more conservative SC Justices like Alito and Scalia. It would not be a good thing for the middle class at all. Or for voting rights or women's right to contraception and prenatal care. We can, however, agree to disagree- without either of us being patronizing. I feel the problem with political discourse (and I'm certainly guilty of this as well) is emphasizing the candidates vs emphasizing the issues. With Sanders' loss, I've resigned and reminded myself that the President is little more than a sock puppet for the party behind them (and yes, it would also have been true for Bernie). So this is what I'm still grappling with: the platform vs the candidates. This is where most get it wrong because the system is geared into a "me vs you" mentality instead of an "us vs them" mentality which it should be. We are The People, they are the politicians that are supposed to be working for The People but most often wind up working in their own interests and those of the corporate/billionaire class. Citizen's United is a very serious thing as is the TPP/TISA/TTIP. These two issues put the power of pretty much everything into the hands of the corporates and that shouldn't happen above the will of The People - still Obama continues to push it forward. I think somehow we have to get past the labels of this election and start seriously focusing on the issues. We need to start speaking in terms of "WHAT do you support and believe in" instead of "WHO do you support and believe in" because the WHO isn't going to matter so much as WHAT they represent by way of the platform they are the face of. THAT is something I can really get behind - THAT is something that can be discussed without heat or venom. THAT is what the response needs to be and I have seen several Democrats on this board trying to emphasize it. One of the things that has helped me look past Clinton herself is the fact that some of those same Democrats are admitting she isn't their choice either. It is their ability to look past her and focus on the issues that help others to also focus on the issues. So, let's seriously compare the platforms and not the candidates because we all pretty much generally acknowledge that the candidates equal two evils but each candidate has a machine behind them pushing certain platform issues and those issues are what is getting lost in the noise of "he said/she said" politics.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 3, 2016 17:29:11 GMT
As far as Hillary being truthful, Politifact also rated her to be relatively truthful compared to the other candidates. Does she shade the truth? Yep. They all do. Is that good? Nope. But that goes back to those fundamental changes that you (and I, frankly) would like to see happen in elections. The former editor of the NYT, Jill Abramson, who is no fan of Hillary, said that she is mostly truthful. Here is the article. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramsonKevin Drum from Mother Jones linked a chart just a couple of days ago that said that she was more truthful than the other candidates. I'll let you find that one. Honestly, I am voting because of the SC. Instead of Roe v.Wade being overturned, I would like for Citizens United overturned. There is a very good chance that if a Republican gets the WH, the next 40 years of important litigation will be affected. Voting rights, immigration, yada yada. And yeah, I can be patronizing. As can you. I don't want to get into a tit for tat like...well, I'm not going there. I don't agree with you that Trump dropping out would be a good thing. Certainly not for the SC. Who would they draft? Ryan? If he gets elected and has a Republican Congress, look for SS to be possibly privatized and cut, and possibly Medicare too. Look for more conservative SC Justices like Alito and Scalia. It would not be a good thing for the middle class at all. Or for voting rights or women's right to contraception and prenatal care. We can, however, agree to disagree- without either of us being patronizing. I feel the problem with political discourse (and I'm certainly guilty of this as well) is emphasizing the candidates vs emphasizing the issues. With Sanders' loss, I've resigned and reminded myself that the President is little more than a sock puppet for the party behind them (and yes, it would also have been true for Bernie). So this is what I'm still grappling with: the platform vs the candidates. This is where most get it wrong because the system is geared into a "me vs you" mentality instead of an "us vs them" mentality which it should be. We are The People, they are the politicians that are supposed to be working for The People but most often wind up working in their own interests and those of the corporate/billionaire class. Citizen's United is a very serious thing as is the TPP/TISA/TTIP. These two issues put the power of pretty much everything into the hands of the corporates and that shouldn't happen above the will of The People - still Obama continues to push it forward. I think somehow we have to get past the labels of this election and start seriously focusing on the issues. We need to start speaking in terms of "WHAT do you support and believe in" instead of "WHO do you support and believe in" because the WHO isn't going to matter so much as WHAT they represent by way of the platform they are the face of. THAT is something I can really get behind - THAT is something that can be discussed without heat or venom. THAT is what the response needs to be and I have seen several Democrats on this board trying to emphasize it. One of the things that has helped me look past Clinton herself is the fact that some of those same Democrats are admitting she isn't their choice either. It is their ability to look past her and focus on the issues that help others to also focus on the issues. So, let's seriously compare the platforms and not the candidates because we all pretty much generally acknowledge that the candidates equal two evils but each candidate has a machine behind them pushing certain platform issues and those issues are what is getting lost in the noise of "he said/she said" politics. I can't diagree with a word you said.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Aug 3, 2016 17:55:43 GMT
I do think that Hillary supporters really believe she is the best hope for our nation - but only in regards to the alternative: Trump[bold mine] You have the right to believe that, of course, but I believe there's enough evidence that there are many people (like me) who genuinely support her candidacy even without the specter of Donald Trump. I'm surrounded by them in my everyday life. The only explanation would be that people are hiding their true intentions from me - at home, at work, in the neighborhood, here. Now I'm getting paranoid. Need to call my husband and kids. STAT.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Aug 3, 2016 18:04:36 GMT
I do think that Hillary supporters really believe she is the best hope for our nation - but only in regards to the alternative: Trump[bold mine] You have the right to believe that, of course, but I believe there's enough evidence that there are many people (like me) who genuinely support her candidacy even without the specter of Donald Trump. I'm surrounded by them in my everyday life. The only explanation would be that people are hiding their true intentions from me - at home, at work, in the neighborhood, here. Now I'm getting paranoid. Need to call my husband and kids. STAT. I'm a real supporter of her, too. And I envy you; I'm in the rust belt, smack dab in the middle of Trump country.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Aug 3, 2016 23:55:52 GMT
In my opinion I think there is something mentally ill about Hillary Clinton's lying. A person running for president doesn't tell such blatant lies such as the one she told regarding landing in the helicopter and running for the tarmac under gunfire when there is a video of the same helicopter landing and it shows her stepping out of said helicopter peacefully greeting people, shaking their hands and receiving flowers. If I was running for president I would know that sort of lie would easily be proven false by the video. This happens over and over and over again. So why does she do it? It's hurting her in the polls. She's know as the least trustworthy candidate. It makes logical sense that she can't help herself. Sure all politicians lie. But not to this extent. It's the reason she has lost my vote. I cannot believe one word that comes out of her mouth. Sure she has promised to endorse some of Bernie's platform, but I believe with my whole mind and heart that the day she becomes president (if that day comes) all of that will be thrown out the window. She will say anything to be elected. A person that flip flops this much, that lies this much cannot be trusted. What most people do not understand is that we don't have just two candidates to choose from this election. We have four. We also have Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party-check her out at jill2016.com and we have Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. Check him out at johnsonweld.com Don't vote out of fear. Look, you may believe that you have the luxury of living in a world of unicorns, fairies and rainbows where a third party candidate is going to be elected in November. I don't share that sentiment. What I am afraid of is waking up November 9 to a country run by a megalomaniac. I think pretty much everyone agrees that our two party system isn't working and needs reform. But stop chasing a pipe dream, keep the dirtbag with tiny hands out of the White House, and then we can all get busy over the next 4-8 years trying to make some real changes. I don't think a third party candidate is going to get elected in November. I know the numbers aren't there. I never said that, so why you think I live with my head in la la land (your description of a world of unicorns, fairies and rainbows) is beyond me. But, that doesn't mean I am going to vote out of fear. It doesn't mean I am going to vote for the "lesser of two evils". Actually I think both candidates are horrific choices, although the more I read about Hillary Clinton each day she is becoming the worst choice of the two to me. That is my opinion. I understand it is not yours. It doesn't mean I want Donald Trump in the White House. I want to make that clear. But at the end of the day I would rather see him there than Hillary Clinton. Because I know he will be gone in 4 years and she'll be there for 8. I believe there will not be any progressive or Democratic platform changes under Hillary Clinton and that she is more like a Republican in disguise than a true Democrat. You are letting fear decide your vote. That's fine, it's your vote-let it go to whomever you wish. But I'm done playing that game. The two party system is getting us nowhere in this country. It's time to break it. My vote will go to someone I'm proud to vote for. Someone who's platform I believe in. Dr. Jill Stein's platform is almost identical to Bernie's. The Green Party is who I came up with when I did that quiz (I forgot what it's called) that you do online to figure out who you identify with the most. Makes sense, as a vegan with the environment huge on my list that the Green Party would be who I would be matched with.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Aug 4, 2016 1:00:50 GMT
As far as Hillary being truthful, Politifact also rated her to be relatively truthful compared to the other candidates. Does she shade the truth? Yep. They all do. Is that good? Nope. But that goes back to those fundamental changes that you (and I, frankly) would like to see happen in elections. The former editor of the NYT, Jill Abramson, who is no fan of Hillary, said that she is mostly truthful. Here is the article. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/28/hillary-clinton-honest-transparency-jill-abramsonKevin Drum from Mother Jones linked a chart just a couple of days ago that said that she was more truthful than the other candidates. I'll let you find that one. Honestly, I am voting because of the SC. Instead of Roe v.Wade being overturned, I would like for Citizens United overturned. There is a very good chance that if a Republican gets the WH, the next 40 years of important litigation will be affected. Voting rights, immigration, yada yada. And yeah, I can be patronizing. As can you. I don't want to get into a tit for tat like...well, I'm not going there. I don't agree with you that Trump dropping out would be a good thing. Certainly not for the SC. Who would they draft? Ryan? If he gets elected and has a Republican Congress, look for SS to be possibly privatized and cut, and possibly Medicare too. Look for more conservative SC Justices like Alito and Scalia. It would not be a good thing for the middle class at all. Or for voting rights or women's right to contraception and prenatal care. We can, however, agree to disagree- without either of us being patronizing. I feel the problem with political discourse (and I'm certainly guilty of this as well) is emphasizing the candidates vs emphasizing the issues. With Sanders' loss, I've resigned and reminded myself that the President is little more than a sock puppet for the party behind them (and yes, it would also have been true for Bernie). So this is what I'm still grappling with: the platform vs the candidates. This is where most get it wrong because the system is geared into a "me vs you" mentality instead of an "us vs them" mentality which it should be. We are The People, they are the politicians that are supposed to be working for The People but most often wind up working in their own interests and those of the corporate/billionaire class. Citizen's United is a very serious thing as is the TPP/TISA/TTIP. These two issues put the power of pretty much everything into the hands of the corporates and that shouldn't happen above the will of The People - still Obama continues to push it forward. I think somehow we have to get past the labels of this election and start seriously focusing on the issues. We need to start speaking in terms of "WHAT do you support and believe in" instead of "WHO do you support and believe in" because the WHO isn't going to matter so much as WHAT they represent by way of the platform they are the face of. THAT is something I can really get behind - THAT is something that can be discussed without heat or venom. THAT is what the response needs to be and I have seen several Democrats on this board trying to emphasize it. One of the things that has helped me look past Clinton herself is the fact that some of those same Democrats are admitting she isn't their choice either. It is their ability to look past her and focus on the issues that help others to also focus on the issues. So, let's seriously compare the platforms and not the candidates because we all pretty much generally acknowledge that the candidates equal two evils but each candidate has a machine behind them pushing certain platform issues and those issues are what is getting lost in the noise of "he said/she said" politics. I completely agree with this. The Democratic platform aligns most closely with my views; the current Republican platform is repugnant to me no matter which candidate they put up. He/she could be a paragon of personal virtue - I can't vote for someone who is running on that platform. Similarly, the Democratic candidate may have a checkered past, but the party platform is one I can get behind. That said, there is still a lot in the Libertarian platform that I agree with (and some things I don't), and I haven't made a decision yet, so those who are so sweetly concerned about the state of my marriage don't need to check in. ;P
|
|