2016 Presidential Campaign


flyfishing3
 Share

Recommended Posts

Part of it was how he looked.  I was watching that live and bust out laughing.

 

called my wife and told her it's over for him. 

 

He he will never get on the big stage now.   Doesn't matter it was a brain fart 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, flyfishing3 said:

Part of it was how he looked.  I was watching that live and bust out laughing.

called my wife and told her it's over for him. 

He he will never get on the big stage now.   Doesn't matter it was a brain fart 

People like you are the reason we have the shit selection of candidates we have. He admitted he didn't understand the question/topic, pretty apolitically and honestly, but you need him to be a bullshitter to consider him a viable candidate. You indirectly want a career politician, a talking suit, but then get upset when you get one in office.

The part I don't understand is that his political views are such that we should be less concerned with foreign affairs than we have been. I guess maybe it would have been too dismissive to point out in that moment that he is less concerned with their business, to leave it to NATO, and to focus on some of our more local issues?

But I'll admit... his public speaking does have room for improvement.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, flyfishing3 said:

Part of it was how he looked.  I was watching that live and bust out laughing.

 

called my wife and told her it's over for him. 

 

He he will never get on the big stage now.   Doesn't matter it was a brain fart 

The ignorance and disregard is high in this post, Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

1.  People like you are the reason we have the shit selection of candidates we have. He admitted he didn't understand the question/topic, pretty apolitically and honestly, but you need him to be a bullshitter to consider him a viable candidate. 2. You indirectly want a career politician, a talking suit, but then get upset when you get one in office.

The part I don't understand is that his political views are such that we should be less concerned with foreign affairs than we have been. I guess maybe it would have been too dismissive to point out in that moment that he is less concerned with their business, to leave it to NATO, and to focus on some of our more local issues?

3.But I'll admit... his public speaking does have room for improvement.

1.  I do not force anybody to run or not to.

2. You seem to forget I was a Bernie supporter.  My dream candidate was warren. 

3. If you aren't ready for prime time, don't show your face and blow up the cause for years. 

10 minutes ago, Timbo Slice said:

The ignorance and disregard is high in this post, Mike.

I wouldn't go that far. I watched in an attempt to educate myself( he has been on numerous times though) .   I will never take serious somebody that wants to legalize drugs, put that in the disregard column then I guess.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

 I guess maybe it would have been too dismissive to point out in that moment that he is less concerned with their business, to leave it to NATO, and to focus on some of our more local issues?

But I'll admit... his public speaking does have room for improvement.

You do know that we spearhead that whole NATO deal right?  Does he know what NATO is?

19 minutes ago, Timbo Slice said:

The ignorance and disregard is high in this post, Mike.

I thought Mike was spot on here and I don't say that much do I Mike?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, flyfishing3 said:

1.  I do not force anybody to run or not to.

2. You seem to forget I was a Bernie supporter.  My dream candidate was warren. 

3. If you aren't ready for prime time, don't show your face and blow up the cause for years. 

I wouldn't go that far. I watched in an attempt to educate myself( he has been on numerous times though) .   I will never take serious somebody that wants to legalize drugs, put that in the disregard column then I guess.  

1. ... okay?

2. No I didn't. And does not change my point.

3. I don't understand why we need to quiz candidates on the spot, on many kinds of knowledge, and expect them to speak to it every time. To me, it is not unlike having school children memorize more trivial things that they can reference on the job/in real life before hand. I'd expect a President not to make uninformed decisions. But I don't need them to know everything off the cuff.

4. You're looking to validate your unwillingness to consider other options. I'd accuse you of having the same close mindedness if this was Stein, don't let my personal preferences get in the way. And hooray for single-issue voting. Besides, I believe he'd be fine with your state keeping the drug laws the way they are. He is not for the federal government regulating it. The same dismissiveness was used when Ron Paul said he personally didn't want abortions, but close minded people like yourself conveniently overlooked that he said it should be a state level decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fudge_Brownie said:

3. I don't understand why we need to quiz candidates on the spot, on many kinds of knowledge, and expect them to speak to it every time. To me, it is not unlike having school children memorize more trivial things that they can reference on the job/in real life before hand. I'd expect a President not to make uninformed decisions. But I don't need them to know everything off the cuff.

 

Unless its Trump RIGHT?  Right?  right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Yellow95 said:

You do know that we spearhead that whole NATO deal right?  Does he know what NATO is?

So what? The point being that we have NATO to make these kind of world-governing decisions/debates. I can see why we would want to take part in it, be a member. But I also see that we should reduce our involvement in foreign issues, especially directly.

2 minutes ago, Yellow95 said:

Unless its Trump RIGHT?  Right?  right?

That's a straw-man right? Where you pretend I would take issue with something, even though I haven't, so you can discredit it? I always forget the names for those scenarios.

I have universal expectations. And I don't expect him to know about everything off-the-cuff either. I'll say that I think he knows quite a bit less off the cuff than the rest, but that's not really relevant. And the few times I've paid attention to his speaking, he didn't really make much for points. Just talked in generalities. Those aren't quiz moments either. That's prepared speaking, where you're supposed to have a point to make. But you remember earlier in this discussion when I said GJ also could use improvement in his public speaking too, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

 

4. You're looking to validate your unwillingness to consider other options. I'd accuse you of having the same close mindedness if this was Stein, don't let my personal preferences get in the way. And hooray for single-issue voting. Besides, I believe he'd be fine with your state keeping the drug laws the way they are. He is not for the federal government regulating it. The same dismissiveness was used when Ron Paul said he personally didn't want abortions, but close minded people like yourself conveniently overlooked that he said it should be a state level decision.

There are many things that should not be made at the state level(you are showing your lib stripes)

 

1.no way abortion should be a state by state decision.  I.e. The crazy crap Texas is trying 

2. Drugs.  Should not be a state to state decision.

3. Defense money 

4. Health care programs, SSi, welfare, CHiP etc type programs. would be a disaster if each state was to tax and then spend.  IMO, look how the locals are destroying education in most states.  

what road to pave is a state decision.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, flyfishing3 said:

There are many things that should not be made at the state level(you are showing your lib stripes)

1.no way abortion should be a state by state decision.  I.e. The crazy crap Texas is trying 

2. Drugs.  Should not be a state to state decision.

3. Defense money 

4. Health care programs, SSi, welfare, CHiP etc type programs. would be a disaster if each state was to tax and then spend.  IMO, look how the locals are destroying education in most states.  

what road to pave is a state decision.  

1. We obviously disagree strongly on this one, but that's fine. My point is that the discussion on these type of issues often ignores what was really said. So it becomes 'he's anti-abortion' instead of 'he wants state level decisions'. See the difference?

2. Because the federal government has done so well with it so far?

3. What about it?

4. I'm lost. Wait... you know that advocating for states rights doesn't mean dissolving the federal government entirely right? That it still has a purpose? And that people can agree on what purpose that is? This is almost as bad as those who claim libertarians want zero government.

5. What road to pave? Interesting. Because you know the federal government collects tax money from all 50 states via gas tax, then distributes it to them, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

1. We obviously disagree strongly on this one, but that's fine. My point is that the discussion on these type of issues often ignores what was really said. So it becomes 'he's anti-abortion' instead of 'he wants state level decisions'. See the difference?

2. Because the federal government has done so well with it so far?

3. What about it?

4. I'm lost. Wait... you know that advocating for states rights doesn't mean dissolving the federal government entirely right? That it still has a purpose? And that people can agree on what purpose that is? This is almost as bad as those who claim libertarians want zero government.

5. What road to pave? Interesting. Because you know the federal government collects tax money from all 50 states via gas tax, then distributes it to them, right?

5. the states do as well, PA has some of the more expensive gas on the east coast solely due to taxes.  I have a 2 refineries of some sort a couple miles down the road and my gas is .50 cents more than NJ.

the GOvt is basically a representation of the states.  Look at how a single Governor has been able to destroy a state. i site KANSAS, MICH,  PA even, Corbett was terrible, Rendell was the worst..

1.  The law has been determined, its not for a state to decide based on who is in power.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I agree with Mike on this as the states should not be represented individually regarding their ruling on the matter, as it is a much more global issue and, right or wrong, this country needs to come to a uniform decision governing all 50 states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have been doing a lot of thinking over the last few months about my personal views and who I will be voting for in the upcoming election and I had a moment of clarity when talking to my wife. You should vote for whoever the hell you want, regardless of what the news tells you or to stop someone else from gaining power. We as Americans have a Constitutional right to vote for whoever we damn well please and I want to execute that right. I personally feel that the Democratic Party has failed us in this Presidential race by pushing (read forcing) Clinton down everyone's throats. I do not agree with the tactics she has used the the things she has done so I will not be voting for her, I will be voting for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. For those who say "but what about a Trump presidency, we cannot afford to have that happen to our country!" I say back: then why did the Democratic party push such a weak candidate from the very beginning? If this was so important why isn't Clinton actually giving a shit about important issues (she has said nothing, zero, zilch about the pipelines bursting or the Native American land being disrespected by oil pipelines yet in black in white on her website she says she stands to defend Native Americans). She is a weak candidate who will say anything to be elected and if we end up with Trump, it's their fucking fault for snubbing Bernie who I saw as the much stronger candidate. Basically the whole point of this block of text is vote for who YOU want to be President: not to stop another candidate from being elected and not to just align with your party. Vote from your heart and conscience. Have a good day everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share