2016 Election Thread

[Craig Arko]

Well at the very least, she'd be a hell of a lot of fun to tortuously dangle in front of the RNC if they don't get their act together.

 

She's also more well liked as a First Lady than Hillary was. Which I think is part of Hillary's problem now. People remember they didn't like her back in the day, but they forget it was quite possible it was due to a more misogynistic culture. Hilary was the first First Lady in decades that wasn't either a matronly grandmother-type figure, or a girl-next-door/housewife-type.

 

I remember personally giving her crap for Bill's indiscretions, likely because she just seemed like such a cold fish. Good lord that's awful, I wish my world view then was half of what it is today.

That's how we grow up. My world view was a few orders of magnitude smaller in my 20's than it is today.

[Craig Arko]

Heh heh heh.

 

[ashbury]

or a girl-next-door/housewife-type.

The Kennedys lived in a fancier neighborhood than I did, then.

[TheLeviathan]

Apple doesn't fall far from the tree either.

[USAFChief]

 

Apple doesn't fall far from the tree either.

Can't "like."

 

yeesh.  

[ashbury]

Apple doesn't fall far from the tree either.

This is one of the scions that Hillary praised in the most recent debate? I can't vote for her, her judgement is too sketchy.

[Bark's Lounge]

I am not picking any winners in this election yet. It looks very promising for Clinton. Either way, it might not be the high road, but I want to see Trump destroyed on all fronts after this election, He is a all around awful human being. I hate reality television, but let's make his demise the last one we view in that genre.

 

"Make America Great Again?" **** That.

 

"Make America Functionally Literate and informed" is my motto.

 

This has been as disaster.

[Shane Wahl]

 

Michelle Obama is marvelous and a great speaker.

But that doesn't make her a good choice as a leader either. Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

 

Why I think she would be a good leader? Because she CLEARLY doesn't want to be one. 

[Shane Wahl]

 

This is one of the scions that Hillary praised in the most recent debate? I can't vote for her, her judgement is too sketchy.

 

She said that just so Chelsea and Ivanka can still hang out.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Why I think she would be a good leader? Because she CLEARLY doesn't want to be one. 

 

Maybe.  But the sentiment of "She's saying something that resonates with me and I like her!  Let's give her power!" is sort of reminiscent.  I can't put my finger on what orange faced menace might be getting fueled by a similar sentiment.  But it sure does seem familiar.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer qualified people who know their stuff.  Not that Michelle can't be that, but I'd need a lot more evidence than one excellent speech.

[Shane Wahl]

 

Maybe.  But the sentiment of "She's saying something that resonates with me and I like her!  Let's give her power!" is sort of reminiscent.  I can't put my finger on what orange faced menace might be getting fueled by a similar sentiment.  But it sure does seem familiar.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer qualified people who know their stuff.  Not that Michelle can't be that, but I'd need a lot more evidence than one excellent speech.

 

Yes, I didn't mean to say that was the only needed qualification.

[Squirrel]

 

Maybe.  But the sentiment of "She's saying something that resonates with me and I like her!  Let's give her power!" is sort of reminiscent.  I can't put my finger on what orange faced menace might be getting fueled by a similar sentiment.  But it sure does seem familiar.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer qualified people who know their stuff.  Not that Michelle can't be that, but I'd need a lot more evidence than one excellent speech.

From living in Chicago, you must know her background and work experiences ... or maybe you don't? I think she has great qualifications ... not to run for president, at least not initially ... but she could run for some kind of public office and do very well. Although, one qualification she does not possess, which is necessary, and will likely be the reason we never see her in political office ... she doesn't like campaigning.

 

But she gave one powerful speech the other night. Probably the best we've heard on the campaign trail yet this year. What made it the best, imo, it didn't seem studied or measured, it felt honest and personal and from the heart. And she was right in what she said.

 

And while I agree that we should never anoint anyone based on one speech, we also needn't outright dismiss them, either. She's intriguing, and I think that's what some of us were on about rather than take us so literally and then jumping to the comparison of Trump. Yeeesh.

[TheLeviathan]

 

And while I agree that we should never anoint anyone based on one speech, we also needn't outright dismiss them, either. She's intriguing, and I think that's what some of us were on about rather than take us so literally and then jumping to the comparison of Trump. Yeeesh.

 

It was literally said "give her power".  If you're in that boat you've long since hurdled past the stage of being "intrigued".  That sentiment is all over the internet right now.  It's well into being ridiculous.

 

And it's symptomatic of a lot of our problems now.  We vote based more on who we like than a real evaluation of what they know and what they do.  Or in the case of incumbents - what they've done.

 

I tip my hat to her speech.  It was amazing and genuine.  I'll just appreciate that and not overreach.

[Squirrel]

 

It was literally said "give her power".  If you're in that boat you've long since hurdled past the stage of being "intrigued".  That sentiment is all over the internet right now.  It's well into being ridiculous.

 

And it's symptomatic of a lot of our problems now.  We vote based more on who we like than a real evaluation of what they know and what they do.  Or in the case of incumbents - what they've done.

 

I tip my hat to her speech.  It was amazing and genuine.  I'll just appreciate that and not overreach.

No, it didn't say 'give her power' it said 'voter her into power' and it was one person's opinion that he thought she'd make a great leader. Which you immediately dismissed with what seemed to be little thought. Perhaps done so because of well, what's out there now. But it's a bit of a jump going from someone's enthusiasm over a great speech saying something that many really don't want to hear and doing so with heartfelt honesty to comparing her to Trump and his followers. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

comparing her to Trump and his followers. 

 

I'm comparing the shallow sentiment behind the appeal.  And it's widely out there on the internet, you don't have to look far to see people wildly overreaching after hearing that speech.

 

Perhaps that's just the new age we live in.  If so, that isn't a good thing.

[Squirrel]

 

I'm comparing the shallow sentiment behind the appeal.  And it's widely out there on the internet, you don't have to look far to see people wildly overreaching after hearing that speech.

 

Perhaps that's just the new age we live in.  If so, that isn't a good thing.

Again ... you are taking this far too literally and jumping quite a few sharks in the process. Perhaps those of us who think she'd make a great leader do actually know more about her than this one speech. Perhaps that one speech was a culmination and tipping point from the admiration and respect already held for Michelle Obama to thinking ... yeah ... maybe she could do great things. Is that so hard to imagine? No one here is holding signs up that say 'Michelle 2024' ... no one. Once again ... mountains over there, molehills over here.

[ashbury]

Again ... you are taking this far too literally and jumping quite a few sharks in the process. Perhaps those of us who think she'd make a great leader do actually know more about her than this one speech. Perhaps that one speech was a culmination and tipping point from the admiration and respect already held for Michelle Obama to thinking ... yeah ... maybe she could do great things. Is that so hard to imagine? No one here is holding signs up that say 'Michelle 2024' ... no one. Once again ... mountains over there, molehills over here.

Perhaps not here but you don't have to look far.

http://i3.cpcache.com/product/768217786/hillary_clinton_2016_michelle_obama_2024_bumper_bumper_sticker.jpg

[Craig Arko]

Perhaps not here but you don't have to look far.

http://i3.cpcache.com/product/768217786/hillary_clinton_2016_michelle_obama_2024_bumper_bumper_sticker.jpg

Maybe we'll survive the 21st century after all.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Again ... you are taking this far too literally and jumping quite a few sharks in the process. Perhaps those of us who think she'd make a great leader do actually know more about her than this one speech. Perhaps that one speech was a culmination and tipping point from the admiration and respect already held for Michelle Obama to thinking ... yeah ... maybe she could do great things. Is that so hard to imagine? No one here is holding signs up that say 'Michelle 2024' ... no one. Once again ... mountains over there, molehills over here.

 

Again, as ashbury showed, it's out there.  You don't even have to look far.

 

I agree, we're making mountains out of molehills.  The molehill is the speech and the mountain is the overreach in reaction to it.  Where that parallels Trump is that it's largely driven by immediate, reactionary emotions rather than actual insight. 

 

Let's just admire that molehill.  It was wonderful.

[Squirrel]

 

Again, as ashbury showed, it's out there.  You don't even have to look far.

 

I agree, we're making mountains out of molehills.  The molehill is the speech and the mountain is the overreach in reaction to it.  Where that parallels Trump is that it's largely driven by immediate, reactionary emotions rather than actual insight. 

 

Let's just admire that molehill.  It was wonderful.

Oy ... well, the molehill was just the respect and admiration people have for Michelle, the mountain is your immediate assumption and dismissal. Really. And I roll my eyes at the above sticker, meme, whatever, because well, yeah, on that you and I agree. But just consider the source.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Oy ... well, the molehill was just the respect and admiration people have for Michelle, the mountain is your immediate assumption and dismissal. Really. And I roll my eyes at the above sticker, meme, whatever, because well, yeah, on that you and I agree. But just consider the source.

 

I encourage you to look at how many people have created that mountain.  If you haven't, great!  But it's out there.

 

And really, should that be a surprise?  This election has been all about visceral reactions with little substance or thought behind them.  Hell, you don't even disagree really, you were making the same argument about why Hillary was a superior choice to Bernie.

 

From Bernie, to Trump, to the absurd reaction out there about Michelle's speech - it's been the norm, not the exception.  I'm not a fan of it.

[Squirrel]

 

I encourage you to look at how many people have created that mountain.  If you haven't, great!  But it's out there.

 

And really, should that be a surprise?  This election has been all about visceral reactions with little substance or thought behind them.  Hell, you don't even disagree really, you were making the same argument about why Hillary was a superior choice to Bernie.

 

From Bernie, to Trump, to the absurd reaction out there about Michelle's speech - it's been the norm, not the exception.  I'm not a fan of it.

Honestly, my conversation is about in here, not there. And you will have that out there because, well, people and social media. But Michelle isn't a candidate for anything and likely won't be, per her own statements to the fact she doesn't like the campaigning nor the public scrutiny. It's a far cry from people respecting an individual for their heartfelt intelligence vs someone like Trump. And if momentum continues to carry beyond the week, which I doubt, into an eventual presidential candidacy in 8 years, which I also highly doubt, between her and Trump she would be a far better, far more qualified candidate than him. But this has gotten to be a very ridiculous conversation. I think there is room for a few of us to applaud Michelle and even wonder if she could be a great leader without you jumping the shark, telling us it would be akin to a Trump candidacy, reacting too literally and too seriously too soon. If you see that kind of 'Michelle in 2024' idiocy from any of us here, then by all means. In the meantime, your mountain is just uncalled for. Imo.

[Craig Arko]

By mid-century or so there's a fair chance Watson and friends will be running things anyway, and elected officials will become figureheads like the British monarchy.

 

http://www.ibm.com/cognitive/

[TheLeviathan]

 

Honestly, my conversation is about in here, not there. 

 

This entire 267 page thread has been about how in here and out there are related and about the discussion of both.  It has been about broader trends and a host of other things.  Many thoughts posted in this thread have been extrapolated and compared to those trends.  So I guess I was just sticking with the course of the conversation.  

 

If some are going to make a mountain out of a molehill here, it's worth pointing out that the same effect is happening broadly.  And it's totally absurd.

 

If your mountain is less absurd and not comparable, then you don't need to feel defensive about it.  But while you may not be in mountain territory there are many out there that are.  And I'm not sure even in this thread if some (excluding you, as you've made clear) don't have their hiking boots on.

[TheLeviathan]

Now the DNC is being inundated with trolling efforts emboldened by the leaks revealing real email addresses.

[Squirrel]

 

This entire 267 page thread has been about how in here and out there are related and about the discussion of both.  It has been about broader trends and a host of other things.  Many thoughts posted in this thread have been extrapolated and compared to those trends.  So I guess I was just sticking with the course of the conversation.  

 

If some are going to make a mountain out of a molehill here, it's worth pointing out that the same effect is happening broadly.  And it's totally absurd.

 

If your mountain is less absurd and not comparable, then you don't need to feel defensive about it.  But while you may not be in mountain territory there are many out there that are.  And I'm not sure even in this thread if some (excluding you, as you've made clear) don't have their hiking boots on.

My point is no one here is making the mountain out of molehill here except you regarding this one issue.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Perhaps not here but you don't have to look far.

http://i3.cpcache.com/product/768217786/hillary_clinton_2016_michelle_obama_2024_bumper_bumper_sticker.jpg

I would take my chances with that.

[jimmer]

There's no way I can vote for Trump.  Never going to happen.  I'm not thrilled about Mrs. Clinton either, but unfortunately this election is about who is the lesser of two horrible options and IMO, that's Mrs. Clinton.

 

What bothers me a little is how some seem fine with saying they want to vote for Mrs. Clinton because it's about time a woman had the office.  In other words, a lot of people seem okay with people voting for her because she's a woman, but then get offended by people who bring up gender as a reason to not vote for her.  Seems hypocritical to me.  If you're voting for her because she's a woman and see no problem with that being the main reason why, then it should be equally fine for someone to not vote for her because she is a woman.

 

What would be ideal is if gender and race were taken completely out of the equation when voting and we just look at whomever the best PERSON is for the office (and between Mrs. Clinton and Trump, it's Mrs. Clinton).  Elections shouldn't be about making history.  Our vote shouldn't be about making a social statement.  The office is too important.

[Squirrel]

There's no way I can vote for Trump.  Never going to happen.  I'm not thrilled about Mrs. Clinton either, but unfortunately this election is about who is the lesser of two horrible options and IMO, that's Mrs. Clinton.

 

What bothers me a little is how some seem fine with saying they want to vote for Mrs. Clinton because it's about time a woman had the office.  In other words, a lot of people seem okay with people voting for her because she's a woman, but then get offended by people who bring up gender as a reason to not vote for her.  Seems hypocritical to me.  If you're voting for her because she's a woman and see no problem with that being the main reason why, then it should be equally fine for someone to not vote for her because she is a woman.

 

What would be ideal is if gender and race were taken completely out of the equation when voting and we just look at whomever the best PERSON is for the office (and between Mrs. Clinton and Trump, it's Mrs. Clinton).  Elections shouldn't be about making history.  Our vote shouldn't be about making a social statement.  The office is too important.

I know of no one who is voting for her solely because she is a woman. None. Yes, there are plenty who have made a big deal out of the fact that she is a woman but they are voting for her based on what she stands for and are excited that on top of that, she happens to be a woman. And make no mistake, if she does win, it will be historic to elect a woman whether you like her or not. Maybe you don't find reason to celebrate that, but I have a lifetime of reasons to celebrate that and will if she wins. But yes, there are those who will cast a vote based solely on gender. I'd bet there are more who will vote against based on that than will vote for. Same along racial lines in 2008. And I know of one person who will never vote for another white male in her lifetime if there is a viable, qualified alternative.

[jimmer]

I'll just continue to vote for whomever is the better choice regardless of gender or race.  I won't even take gender or race into account.  I certainly won't say 'well, this one candidate is better, but the other candidate is almost as good and the gender or race I prefer so they will get my vote not the better candidate.'

 

IMO, it should always be about whomever is the best candidate.  Whomever would make the best President.