RealGM

SpinninHouse wrote:

TheStig wrote:

DarthDiggler69 wrote:Im embarassed Trump won my state

I'm embarrassed Trump and Hilary won my state.

100% agree. Two God-awful candidates. Trump is a narcissistic juvenile bully and Hillary is greedy, reckless, liar. Two really bad options for POTUS.

I'm going to write somebody in.

uh...politicians tend to at minimum stretch the truth, but how is hillary greedy and reckless? seems to me, if she was greedy she would have become a lobbyist by now rather than put herself through the ringer to run for president and perhaps perform one of the most stressful jobs in the world until age 77. and does a greedy woman really go for a guy like this?

SpinninHouse wrote:

dice wrote:

musiqsoulchild wrote:
Thats literally EVERY swing state in the national election.

Cities are blue....everywhere else is Red.

bernie's not a republican though

he does do better with white voters

He also does awesome with 19 years old living on couches eating cool ranch doritos.

Hmm, I havent noticed "old people" being more well informed and smarter on the issues than young voters. Old voters tend to have a more jaded perspective, which is about it. Warped as well. If anything, young people motivated to vote imo are usually among the best and brightest out of our population, and appear to have a well informed grasp of the issues. If I had to choose and hand pick a group of voters to vote, it would be them. They have the long term future of the country in mind, more than old people. I dont like the youth bashing tbh, I think it's wrong.

This board is brilliant by the way. You guys in your 2 days have had 4 times the rate of posts than the CA board has had on these subjects sice Feb. Smarter and a million times less degenerates too.

fleet wrote:

SpinninHouse wrote:

dice wrote:bernie's not a republican though

he does do better with white voters

He also does awesome with 19 years old living on couches eating cool ranch doritos.

Hmm, I havent noticed "old people" being more well informed and smarter on the issues than young voters. Old voters tend to have a more jaded perspective, which is about it. Warped as well. If anything, young people motivated to vote imo are usually among the hest and brightest out of our population, and appear to have a well informed grasp of the issues. If I had to choose and hand pick a group of voters to vote, it would be them. They have the long term future of the country in mind, more than old people. I dont like the youth bashing tbh, I think it's wrong.

I hate youth bashing also. I was a youth once. Some might say I still am.

I can't ignore the fact that historically speaking, the youth just don't come out to vote in midterms. They come out in droves, are vocal, and often some of the more articulate and well reasoned voters during presidential elections, but they disappear in midterms.

Those who blame Obama for being a failure that voted for him in '08 and '12 had better have voted in the midterms. I was 20 in 2008 and that was the most impressive and proud moments for me as an American voting in my first presidential election, then to see him win. His inauguration brought me to tears. Its symbolism was incredible, especially for me being a person of color. Then what did I do as a 22 year old for the 2010 election?

I didn't, ****, vote. I regret that decision or set of circumstance to this day--and I would have been voting in Florida at that time no less.

Here I was. I had canvassed for Obama in '08, as much as I could as a college student at the time. Once he won, I thought that we had won the whole thing. I took midterms as a "We voted him in in 2008... we are set, they don't need me, enough will still come out. Our generation is different!"

How wrong I was. In spite of people like me, Obama managed to get some things done. They may not have been as pure as we wanted when he was running, but he still got some incremental change done.

dice wrote:

SpinninHouse wrote:

TheStig wrote:I'm embarrassed Trump and Hilary won my state.

100% agree. Two God-awful candidates. Trump is a narcissistic juvenile bully and Hillary is greedy, reckless, liar. Two really bad options for POTUS.

I'm going to write somebody in.

uh...politicians tend to at minimum stretch the truth, but how is hillary greedy and reckless? seems to me, if she was greedy she would have become a lobbyist by now rather than put herself through the ringer to run for president and perhaps perform one of the most stressful jobs in the world until age 77. and does a greedy woman really go for a guy like this?

You are wrong, again. Hillary Clinton used an unsecured server to send nearly 100 classified emails. It was most reckless acts by any high ranking politician in recent memory. How on earth a person couldn't classify that as "reckless" is beyond me. Advanced countries harmful to our interests all over the globe dream of finding classified emails from our Sec of State on unsecured servers.

And let's not even get into Hillary Clinton's greed. She was paid $700,000 while in office to give three speeches for Goldman Sachs. She lied to Anderson Cooper's face and said she had no idea she would be running for President again. If you don't think it's greedy for a Secretary of State to take $700,000 in speaking fee's -- well, lets end this conversation now.

So once again, Dice -- you are 100% wrong.

fleet wrote:

SpinninHouse wrote:

dice wrote:bernie's not a republican though

he does do better with white voters

He also does awesome with 19 years old living on couches eating cool ranch doritos.

Hmm, I havent noticed "old people" being more well informed and smarter on the issues than young voters. Old voters tend to have a more jaded perspective, which is about it. Warped as well. If anything, young people motivated to vote imo are usually among the best and brightest out of our population, and appear to have a well informed grasp of the issues. If I had to choose and hand pick a group of voters to vote, it would be them. They have the long term future of the country in mind, more than old people. I dont like the youth bashing tbh, I think it's wrong.

Come on, Fleet. Have a laugh -- it's a joke.

I also want to point out the Clintons have made $140M since 2007. Anyone who thinks they are altruistic, people-first Mother Theresa's should understand their primary drive is wealth accumulation. Hillary Clinton is a greedy reckless candidate and all liberals who think she's Holier than the conservatives are sadly, sadly mistaken.

gardenofsound wrote:

fleet wrote:

SpinninHouse wrote:
He also does awesome with 19 years old living on couches eating cool ranch doritos.

Hmm, I havent noticed "old people" being more well informed and smarter on the issues than young voters. Old voters tend to have a more jaded perspective, which is about it. Warped as well. If anything, young people motivated to vote imo are usually among the hest and brightest out of our population, and appear to have a well informed grasp of the issues. If I had to choose and hand pick a group of voters to vote, it would be them. They have the long term future of the country in mind, more than old people. I dont like the youth bashing tbh, I think it's wrong.

I hate youth bashing also. I was a youth once. Some might say I still am.

I can't ignore the fact that historically speaking, the youth just don't come out to vote in midterms. They come out in droves, are vocal, and often some of the more articulate and well reasoned voters during presidential elections, but they disappear in midterms.

Those who blame Obama for being a failure that voted for him in '08 and '12 had better have voted in the midterms. I was 20 in 2008 and that was the most impressive and proud moments for me as an American voting in my first presidential election, then to see him win. His inauguration brought me to tears. Its symbolism was incredible, especially for me being a person of color. Then what did I do as a 22 year old for the 2010 election?

I didn't, ****, vote. I regret that decision or set of circumstance to this day--and I would have been voting in Florida at that time no less.

Here I was. I had canvassed for Obama in '08, as much as I could as a college student at the time. Once he won, I thought that we had won the whole thing. I took midterms as a "We voted him in in 2008... we are set, they don't need me, enough will still come out. Our generation is different!"

How wrong I was. In spite of people like me, Obama managed to get some things done. They may not have been as pure as we wanted when he was running, but he still got some incremental change done.

A very heartfelt cautionary tale. That is one definate thing that youth cannot learn before it is learned.

Young people like to be part of big things. Midterms dont get their attention, they get focused on other things in their lives. Yes, a consequential blind spot. Meanwhile, old (and I mean real old) people are motivated as hell to vote, got to give them that. They dominate midterms. I question if it is any kind of wisdom at work though. They seem rather provincial in their mindsets,

SpinninHouse wrote:

dice wrote:

SpinninHouse wrote:
100% agree. Two God-awful candidates. Trump is a narcissistic juvenile bully and Hillary is greedy, reckless, liar. Two really bad options for POTUS.

I'm going to write somebody in.

uh...politicians tend to at minimum stretch the truth, but how is hillary greedy and reckless? seems to me, if she was greedy she would have become a lobbyist by now rather than put herself through the ringer to run for president and perhaps perform one of the most stressful jobs in the world until age 77. and does a greedy woman really go for a guy like this?

You are wrong, again. Hillary Clinton used an unsecured server to send nearly 100 classified emails. It was most reckless acts by any high ranking politician in recent memory. How on earth a person couldn't classify that as "reckless" is beyond me

you listen to too much right wing radio. even bernie sanders is telling people like you to quit exaggerating and shut the hell up. and he has every incentive to milk that non-story. you're gullible

And let's not even get into Hillary Clinton's greed. She was paid $700,000 while in office to give three speeches for Goldman Sachs.

seriously? if they offered you that kind of money to do a speech you wouldn't do it?

i've given you ample evidence she's not greedy and you failed to address any of it. you avoided it because your point is a bad one

She lied to Anderson Cooper's face and said she had no idea she would be running for President again

you mean like EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO HASN'T ANNOUNCED YET does?



quit clowning

So once again, Dice -- you are 100% wrong.

you are seriously the king of exaggeration and wrong-headedness. no contest

SpinninHouse wrote:I also want to point out the Clintons have made $140M since 2007. Anyone who thinks they are altruistic, people-first Mother Theresa's should understand their primary drive is wealth accumulation. Hillary Clinton is a greedy reckless candidate and all liberals who think she's Holier than the conservatives are sadly, sadly mistaken.

once again making things up that nobody said. it seems to be pathological with you

you seem to have no clue that anyone bent on becoming rich doesn't go into politics at a young age with the hopes that maybe one day they'll be president of the united states. it's an absolutely absurd suggestion

bill clinton was a rhodes scholar. hillary was also highly accomplished. if their goal in life was to be rich it would have happened much, much sooner in their lives

common sense

SpinninHouse wrote: Hillary Clinton used an unsecured server to send nearly 100 classified emails. It was most reckless acts by any high ranking politician in recent memory.

How short is that memory of yours?

TheSuzerain wrote:

SpinninHouse wrote: Hillary Clinton used an unsecured server to send nearly 100 classified emails. It was most reckless acts by any high ranking politician in recent memory.

How short is that memory of yours?

such important information in the hands of our enemies now

or maybe not

her mistake was using a private server, no matter how secure. it opened her up to criticism that she might not be getting at all had she simply used the government server

dice wrote:

SpinninHouse wrote:

dice wrote:uh...politicians tend to at minimum stretch the truth, but how is hillary greedy and reckless? seems to me, if she was greedy she would have become a lobbyist by now rather than put herself through the ringer to run for president and perhaps perform one of the most stressful jobs in the world until age 77. and does a greedy woman really go for a guy like this?

You are wrong, again. Hillary Clinton used an unsecured server to send nearly 100 classified emails. It was most reckless acts by any high ranking politician in recent memory. How on earth a person couldn't classify that as "reckless" is beyond me

you listen to too much right wing radio. even bernie sanders is telling people like you to quit exaggerating and shut the hell up. and he has every incentive to milk that non-story. you're gullible

And let's not even get into Hillary Clinton's greed. She was paid $700,000 while in office to give three speeches for Goldman Sachs.

seriously? if they offered you that kind of money to do a speech you wouldn't do it?

i've given you ample evidence she's not greedy and you failed to address any of it. you avoided it because your point is a bad one

She lied to Anderson Cooper's face and said she had no idea she would be running for President again

you mean like EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO HASN'T ANNOUNCED YET does?



quit clowning

So once again, Dice -- you are 100% wrong.

you are seriously the king of exaggeration and wrong-headedness. no contest

This is not a personal attack, but I am going to suspend my discussion with you because you're not knowledgeable enough. I don't listen to right wing radio (so you made another incorrect accusation). Unfortunately for you my information is documented in the SF Gate, the Washington Post, and CNN. Whether you can comprehend it or not, its greedy and a conflict of interest for a Secretary of State with designs of a Presidential run to take $700,000 for three speeches from one of the Nation's largest investment banking firms.

Our entire economy collapsed in 2008 because of institutions like Goldman Sachs -- the one that is in her back pocket.

If I were you, I would consider researching the topics you choose to debate on other than just accuse people of exaggerating when they are citing documented facts. Please read the Anderson Cooper interview transcripts yourself.

You can get angry about being wrong all you want -- but I'm done responding to you.

SpinninHouse wrote:its greedy and a conflict of interest for a Secretary of State with designs of a Presidential run to take $700,000 for three speeches from one of the Nation's largest investment banking firms.

as opposed to...just taking money from them without giving the speech? can you comprehend that there's no difference at all?

Our entire economy collapsed in 2008 because of institutions like Goldman Sachs -- the one that is in her back pocket.

yep. and they're in every other politician's back pocket. why you SINGLE OUT hillary clinton is beyond me. perhaps you have an explanation

Please read the Anderson Cooper interview transcripts yourself.

why? i've already explained to you that EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT HAS NOT YET DECLARED says "i'm not planning to run" or "i haven't decided" or "i'm weighing my options", etc ad nauseum. i put it in caps last time too. did you miss it? have you not been paying attention to the silly games that politicians play? it seems that you have an unhealthy obsession with ms. clinton

it's an argument that has exactly ZERO import anyway. who the hell cares if a candidate says they're not going to run and later does? why does such absolute meaninglessness offend you?

I'm done responding to you.

we all thank you

p.s.: i mentioned right wing radio because in my experience listeners of that junk are the only ones who seem to harp on stuff like the email situation, benghazi, etc. everyone else has the sense to recognize how grossly overblown they are

Apparently a Hillary Donald matchup would be the two most disliked matchup in history.

And Rubio didn't just get spanked in his home state of FL, apparently he won only ONE county (his home county). Ouch. Hope he remembered the safe word.

kyrv wrote:Apparently a Hillary Donald matchup would be the two most disliked matchup in history.

And Rubio didn't just get spanked in his home state of FL, apparently he won only ONE county (his home county). Ouch. Hope he remembered the safe word.

guess he won't be the VP pick either then

dice wrote:

SpinninHouse wrote:its greedy and a conflict of interest for a Secretary of State with designs of a Presidential run to take $700,000 for three speeches from one of the Nation's largest investment banking firms.

as opposed to...just taking money from them without giving the speech? can you comprehend that there's no difference at all?

Our entire economy collapsed in 2008 because of institutions like Goldman Sachs -- the one that is in her back pocket.

yep. and they're in every other politician's back pocket. why you SINGLE OUT hillary clinton is beyond me. perhaps you have an explanation

Please read the Anderson Cooper interview transcripts yourself.

why? i've already explained to you that EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT HAS NOT YET DECLARED says "i'm not planning to run" or "i haven't decided" or "i'm weighing my options", etc ad nauseum. i put it in caps last time too. did you miss it? have you not been paying attention to the silly games that politicians play? it seems that you have an unhealthy obsession with ms. clinton

it's an argument that has exactly ZERO import anyway. who the hell cares if a candidate says they're not going to run and later does? why does such absolute meaninglessness offend you?

I'm done responding to you.

we all thank you

p.s.: i mentioned right wing radio because in my experience listeners of that junk are the only ones who seem to harp on stuff like the email situation, benghazi, etc. everyone else has the sense to recognize how grossly overblown they are

Most of the 5 major media corporations parrot right wing talking points. They are owned by conservative entities. So much for the left wing media.

Since it seems like Hilary will win the Democratic nomination is there any chance she chooses Bernie as her running mate? I would prefer the roles reversed but what ya gunna do.

fleet wrote:

dice wrote:

SpinninHouse wrote:its greedy and a conflict of interest for a Secretary of State with designs of a Presidential run to take $700,000 for three speeches from one of the Nation's largest investment banking firms.

as opposed to...just taking money from them without giving the speech? can you comprehend that there's no difference at all?

Our entire economy collapsed in 2008 because of institutions like Goldman Sachs -- the one that is in her back pocket.

yep. and they're in every other politician's back pocket. why you SINGLE OUT hillary clinton is beyond me. perhaps you have an explanation

Please read the Anderson Cooper interview transcripts yourself.

why? i've already explained to you that EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT HAS NOT YET DECLARED says "i'm not planning to run" or "i haven't decided" or "i'm weighing my options", etc ad nauseum. i put it in caps last time too. did you miss it? have you not been paying attention to the silly games that politicians play? it seems that you have an unhealthy obsession with ms. clinton

it's an argument that has exactly ZERO import anyway. who the hell cares if a candidate says they're not going to run and later does? why does such absolute meaninglessness offend you?

I'm done responding to you.

we all thank you

p.s.: i mentioned right wing radio because in my experience listeners of that junk are the only ones who seem to harp on stuff like the email situation, benghazi, etc. everyone else has the sense to recognize how grossly overblown they are

Most of the 5 major media corporations parrot right wing talking points. They are owned by conservative entities. So much for the left wing media.

they don't parrot the talking points so much as set the agenda for what gets covered. and that agenda is largely influenced by ratings (thus the seemingly wall-to-wall trump coverage, the excessive flag-waving in the run-up to the iraq fiasco, etc.). and older conservatives who sit in front of the tv at night tend to provide the biggest ratings. just ask fox news

jc23 wrote:Since it seems like Hilary will win the Democratic nomination is there any chance she chooses Bernie as her running mate?

no. doesn't serve either of them very well