Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (6 Viewers)

[The Commish]

Well Commish, all I can say is that people here will have to read this conversation and decide who is more accurate (Though I have no doubt that my critics will side with you regardless of the facts; I can only hope that others will take a more even handed approach.) 

Explain the bold please.  Just take one of the points of clarification if you want.  Start with the blue.  You said I said she didn't have smarts.  That's not true.  You can scroll up a few posts and it's right there in black and white.  I said she didn't have a lot of smarts around information and the 21st century.  These are two COMPLETELY different things.  That's the facts.  To go all Trump and suggest that if they side with me it would have to be in lieu of the facts is.....well......Trumptastic.  That's right out of his playbook which I find ridiculously funny.

 

[timschochet]

I think you meant to say "wouldn't have been so foolish enough to"

Can't fix stupid....no matter how corrupt one is    It's not either our when it comes to intelligence and corruption.  I've been told ad nauseum how inept she is/was with technology.  Can't have it both ways Tim.

NOTE:  I am NOT trying to make the point that she's corrupt.  The email situation continues to be an example of a lot of poor judgment and questionable smarts.  Yeah, I have my theories as to why she took the action she did, but those don't really matter because if they were true they just show HOW poor her judgment is and how lacking she is in the smarts department when it comes to the 21st century and information.....that's scary enough for me.

Here is your original post. You wrote that the email thing is an example of "questionable smarts"- you didn't qualify that. Later you wrote she is lacking in the smarts department when it comes to the 21st century and information, which is more qualifying but still plenty vague. So I responded accordingly. 

 

[baymen]

I liked you better the other day when you posted under the Bayman handle, not so wordy and self righteous.

A shocking development.  Squistion is wrong again.

 

[squistion]

A shocking development.  Squistion is wrong again.

Pretty certain you are Hell Toupee or one of his buddies. This is a thread you have never posted in. Interesting how you found my post from yesterday, since I intentionally misspelled the handle as Bayman, figuring you wouldn't notice the typo and would have to take the bait and it worked.

The baymen account has less than 500 posts in 11 years old and rarely, if ever posts in the Shark Pool. And I don't recall your input in the regular political threads in this forum. You claim to be a lurker, but all sparsely used accounts like this that suddenly start posting out of the blue and attacking people with detailed knowledge about this forum always say that.

Meanwhile Hell Toupee is the biggest and about the only defender of Eminence and always comes to his rescue whenever I say anything negative about Em. And, of course, as soon I criticized Em's absurd ranking of Matt Forte over Lamar Miller you instantly came in for the attack and immediately start talking about my "notebook" (tsk tsk, too obvious). Also you tripped up by using some words, phrasing he is fond of, particularly when he is cursing at people. And HT can't properly format an article to save his life and coincidentally it always looks something like the OP in this thread: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/735630-woman-sues-nephew-for-127k-after-she-fell-at-his-8th-birthday-pa/ 

The icing on the cake was demanding the mods check the IPS address, which means nothing. People who have been repeated banned come back the next day because they multiple IPS addresses or can circumvent that.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Pretty certain you are Hell Toupee or one of his buddies. This is a thread you have never posted in. Interesting how you found my post from yesterday, since I intentionally misspelled the handle as Bayman, figuring you wouldn't notice the typo and would have to take the bait and it worked.

The baymen account has less than 500 posts in 11 years old and rarely, if ever posts in the Shark Pool. And I don't recall your input in the regular political threads in this forum. You claim to be a lurker, but all sparsely used accounts like this that suddenly start posting out of the blue and attacking people with detailed knowledge about this forum always say that.

Meanwhile Hell Toupee is the biggest and about the only defender of Eminence and always comes to his rescue whenever I say anything negative about Em. And, of course, as soon I criticized Em's absurd ranking of Matt Forte over Lamar Miller you instantly came in for the attack and immediately start talking about my "notebook" (tsk tsk, too obvious). Also you tripped up by using some words, phrasing he is fond of, particularly when he is cursing at people. And HT can't properly format an article to save his life and coincidentally it always looks something like the OP in this thread: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/735630-woman-sues-nephew-for-127k-after-she-fell-at-his-8th-birthday-pa/ 

The icing on the cake was demanding the mods check the IPS address, which means nothing. People who have been repeated banned come back the next day because they multiple IPS addresses or can circumvent that.

Jesus....

 

[baymen]

You are a bit unhinged.  I read the Clinton thread on the weekdays in my office.  Our convo in the sharkpool had nothing to do with Em, it had to do with you posting political crap in the sharkpool after someone offered up his player rankings.

I don't have any other alias accounts and I am not another poster on here.  I am not voting for Trump or Clinton if that helps and since I am in NY, it doesn't matter anyway.  The fact that I would have to deal with loonbots like you is why I lurk.

BTW, I will be happy to settle this all with the Mods so you can move on to some other ridiculous hunt you so seem to relish.

 

[The Commish]

I think you meant to say "wouldn't have been so foolish enough to"

Can't fix stupid....no matter how corrupt one is    It's not either our when it comes to intelligence and corruption.  I've been told ad nauseum how inept she is/was with technology.  Can't have it both ways Tim.

NOTE:  I am NOT trying to make the point that she's corrupt.  The email situation continues to be an example of a lot of poor judgment and questionable smarts.  Yeah, I have my theories as to why she took the action she did, but those don't really matter because if they were true they just show HOW poor her judgment is and how lacking she is in the smarts department when it comes to the 21st century and information.....that's scary enough for me.

Here is your original post. You wrote that the email thing is an example of "questionable smarts"- you didn't qualify that. Later you wrote she is lacking in the smarts department when it comes to the 21st century and information, which is more qualifying but still plenty vague. So I responded accordingly. 

To be clear.....I don't think she has any idea about technology or cyber security.  That's what I meant by "21st century and information".  Information is a completely different beast these days and I don't find it acceptable if one's best defense in this arena is "ignorance".  It's an incredibly important part of our world and people need to understand the basics and if they don't understand the basics they need to trust the opinions of those who do.  Not understanding the basics AND insisting that people do something on your behalf that they have told you is not wise is the epitome of ignorant or arrogant or both.  Of course I've said all this before so it shouldn't be new.

Where we differ is that you think this sort of knowledge is beneath her.  I don't.  A person in that job with that sort of responsibility better be on top of it or smart enough to have people around them who are on top of it and rely on their opinions if they aren't going to take the time to form an educated opinion of their own.  

 

[The Commish]

You are a bit unhinged.  I read the Clinton thread on the weekdays in my office.  Our convo in the sharkpool had nothing to do with Em, it had to do with you posting political crap in the sharkpool after someone offered up his player rankings.

I don't have any other alias accounts and I am not another poster on here.  I am not voting for Trump or Clinton if that helps and since I am in NY, it doesn't matter anyway.  The fact that I would have to deal with loonbots like you is why I lurk.

BTW, I will be happy to settle this all with the Mods so you can move on to some other ridiculous hunt you so seem to relish.

dude....the internet is serious business to squis....SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whatever you do, don't make a bet with him suggesting the proceeds go to charity.  That's the no-no of all no-nos

:flex:

 

[timschochet]

To be clear.....I don't think she has any idea about technology or cyber security.  That's what I meant by "21st century and information".  Information is a completely different beast these days and I don't find it acceptable if one's best defense in this arena is "ignorance".  It's an incredibly important part of our world and people need to understand the basics and if they don't understand the basics they need to trust the opinions of those who do.  Not understanding the basics AND insisting that people do something on your behalf that they have told you is not wise is the epitome of ignorant or arrogant or both.  Of course I've said all this before so it shouldn't be new.

Where we differ is that you think this sort of knowledge is beneath her.  I don't.  A person in that job with that sort of responsibility better be on top of it or smart enough to have people around them who are on top of it and rely on their opinions if they aren't going to take the time to form an educated opinion of their own.  

Fair enough. We disagree, let's leave it at that. 

 

[The Commish]

To be clear.....I don't think she has any idea about technology or cyber security.  That's what I meant by "21st century and information".  Information is a completely different beast these days and I don't find it acceptable if one's best defense in this arena is "ignorance".  It's an incredibly important part of our world and people need to understand the basics and if they don't understand the basics they need to trust the opinions of those who do.  Not understanding the basics AND insisting that people do something on your behalf that they have told you is not wise is the epitome of ignorant or arrogant or both.  Of course I've said all this before so it shouldn't be new.

Where we differ is that you think this sort of knowledge is beneath her.  I don't.  A person in that job with that sort of responsibility better be on top of it or smart enough to have people around them who are on top of it and rely on their opinions if they aren't going to take the time to form an educated opinion of their own.  

Fair enough. We disagree, let's leave it at that. 

I have no problems with you Tim until you start misrepresenting my words.  If it's not clear to you, ask for clarification.  That's what I do and all I ask of anyone else.

I'm interested to know why you think it's acceptable to behave this way given all the decisions that are going to be coming up with regard to technology and cyber security.  I'm sure you've read a little bit on this DNS thing.  Topics like this are the tip of the iceberg.  If this sort of knowledge is beneath Hillary (on up the line) who's going to be making the educated decisions on these kinds of things?

ETA:  And in the interest of being clear, would you please tell me what you disagree with?  I listed a lot there.  Is it everything?  Meaning you disagree that the world of information isn't completely different or that it isn't an important part of our world?  Or just the part where you think it's beneath people and I don't?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

dude....the internet is serious business to squis....SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whatever you do, don't make a bet with him suggesting the proceeds go to charity.  That's the no-no of all no-nos

:flex:

I thought his head would explode when that happened.

 

[baymen]

dude....the internet is serious business to squis....SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whatever you do, don't make a bet with him suggesting the proceeds go to charity.  That's the no-no of all no-nos

:flex:

It is quite amazing to me he is so invested in this.  I have lurked for years and just stopping by periodically (let's face it, I probably spend way too much time reading the topics in here) knows he is always calling out alias accounts and his "notebook".

 

[cobalt_27]

Pretty certain you are Hell Toupee or one of his buddies. This is a thread you have never posted in. Interesting how you found my post from yesterday, since I intentionally misspelled the handle as Bayman, figuring you wouldn't notice the typo and would have to take the bait and it worked.

The baymen account has less than 500 posts in 11 years old and rarely, if ever posts in the Shark Pool. And I don't recall your input in the regular political threads in this forum. You claim to be a lurker, but all sparsely used accounts like this that suddenly start posting out of the blue and attacking people with detailed knowledge about this forum always say that.

Meanwhile Hell Toupee is the biggest and about the only defender of Eminence and always comes to his rescue whenever I say anything negative about Em. And, of course, as soon I criticized Em's absurd ranking of Matt Forte over Lamar Miller you instantly came in for the attack and immediately start talking about my "notebook" (tsk tsk, too obvious). Also you tripped up by using some words, phrasing he is fond of, particularly when he is cursing at people. And HT can't properly format an article to save his life and coincidentally it always looks something like the OP in this thread: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/735630-woman-sues-nephew-for-127k-after-she-fell-at-his-8th-birthday-pa/ 

The icing on the cake was demanding the mods check the IPS address, which means nothing. People who have been repeated banned come back the next day because they multiple IPS addresses or can circumvent that.

squiz 

 

[timschochet]

I have no problems with you Tim until you start misrepresenting my words.  If it's not clear to you, ask for clarification.  That's what I do and all I ask of anyone else.

I'm interested to know why you think it's acceptable to behave this way given all the decisions that are going to be coming up with regard to technology and cyber security.  I'm sure you've read a little bit on this DNS thing.  Topics like this are the tip of the iceberg.  If this sort of knowledge is beneath Hillary (on up the line) who's going to be making the educated decisions on these kinds of things?

ETA:  And in the interest of being clear, would you please tell me what you disagree with?  I listed a lot there.  Is it everything?  Meaning you disagree that the world of information isn't completely different or that it isn't an important part of our world?  Or just the part where you think it's beneath people and I don't?

I have  no problem with you either, Commish. And I don't even disagree with what you wrote about decisions coming up with regard to technology and cyber security. I simply believe that a distinction can be made between the theory surrounding those issues, and the details surrounding them. What I mean is that I fully expect Hillary to be able to comprehend the macro elements of cyber security to the extent that she can make intelligent decisions regarding it, and yet still have trouble understanding what the F11 button does on her laptop. One does not equate to the other. That's the gist of my argument.

The only other point that I take issue with you, assuming that I understand you correctly, is that several times you have inferred that a Clinton presidency would be just as bad, or nearly as bad, as a Trump presidency. If you believe that to be true, then I strongly disagree. If I have misunderstood you on this point, then my apologies. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Pretty certain you are Hell Toupee or one of his buddies. This is a thread you have never posted in. Interesting how you found my post from yesterday, since I intentionally misspelled the handle as Bayman, figuring you wouldn't notice the typo and would have to take the bait and it worked.

You guys are playing checkers -- squistion is playing a really demented form of chess.

 

[Megaton]

squiz 

  squiz being squiz. 

 

[squistion]

  squiz being squiz. 

  jon_mx being Megaton

 

[The Commish]

I have no problems with you Tim until you start misrepresenting my words.  If it's not clear to you, ask for clarification.  That's what I do and all I ask of anyone else.

I'm interested to know why you think it's acceptable to behave this way given all the decisions that are going to be coming up with regard to technology and cyber security.  I'm sure you've read a little bit on this DNS thing.  Topics like this are the tip of the iceberg.  If this sort of knowledge is beneath Hillary (on up the line) who's going to be making the educated decisions on these kinds of things?

ETA:  And in the interest of being clear, would you please tell me what you disagree with?  I listed a lot there.  Is it everything?  Meaning you disagree that the world of information isn't completely different or that it isn't an important part of our world?  Or just the part where you think it's beneath people and I don't?

I have  no problem with you either, Commish. And I don't even disagree with what you wrote about decisions coming up with regard to technology and cyber security. I simply believe that a distinction can be made between the theory surrounding those issues, and the details surrounding them. What I mean is that I fully expect Hillary to be able to comprehend the macro elements of cyber security to the extent that she can make intelligent decisions regarding it, and yet still have trouble understanding what the F11 button does on her laptop. One does not equate to the other. That's the gist of my argument.

The only other point that I take issue with you, assuming that I understand you correctly, is that several times you have inferred that a Clinton presidency would be just as bad, or nearly as bad, as a Trump presidency. If you believe that to be true, then I strongly disagree. If I have misunderstood you on this point, then my apologies. 

I've never made a comparison between the two.  I've stated many times that I don't believe in comparing the candidates to one another.  I choose to compare them to a standard of what I think the President of the United States should be able to clear.  If neither clears that standard, they both fail.  If they both clear that standard, then there is some merit to making the direct comparison between the two.  Only then will I begin to compare and contrast the two.

With respect to making the distinction between the theory and the details, this is the problem.  Our politicians need to be able to connect the dots between what they legislate and the real impacts on people.  It's not enough to say "Well, in theory choice A is far superior" IMO.  You have to have the understanding yourself or surround yourself with people who have the understanding (and trust what they say).  I see this in her work with children and child healthcare.  I bring this topic up all the time as the measuring stick on how I weed out what she says against what she means/believes.  She'd be a terrible poker player.  It's so clear when she's talking about something she knows and believes.  It's absurd how different her behavior is (for the better) vs when she's pandering.

 

[timschochet]

I've never made a comparison between the two.  I've stated many times that I don't believe in comparing the candidates to one another.  I choose to compare them to a standard of what I think the President of the United States should be able to clear.  If neither clears that standard, they both fail.  If they both clear that standard, then there is some merit to making the direct comparison between the two.  Only then will I begin to compare and contrast the two.

With respect to making the distinction between the theory and the details, this is the problem.  Our politicians need to be able to connect the dots between what they legislate and the real impacts on people.  It's not enough to say "Well, in theory choice A is far superior" IMO.  You have to have the understanding yourself or surround yourself with people who have the understanding (and trust what they say).  I see this in her work with children and child healthcare.  I bring this topic up all the time as the measuring stick on how I weed out what she says against what she means/believes.  She'd be a terrible poker player.  It's so clear when she's talking about something she knows and believes.  It's absurd how different her behavior is (for the better) vs when she's pandering.

I do think you make a good point here. 

 

[The Commish]

I don't know how people ignore it...it's pretty obvious.  

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Including health. She's a broken down old windbag with a ton of health issues. Someone get her some oxygen.

Trump has early Alzheimer's. 

 

[Guest]

Trump has early Alzheimer's. 

Is it even early at 70?  I think that's the normal arrival date.

Gotta think by 73 if your Alzheimers doesn't come, you'd be lobbing in a call. 

 

[Politician Spock]

The only other point that I take issue with you, assuming that I understand you correctly, is that several times you have inferred that a Clinton presidency would be just as bad, or nearly as bad, as a Trump presidency. If you believe that to be true, then I strongly disagree. If I have misunderstood you on this point, then my apologies. 

Bad is bad.

If we have to settle for degrees of bad, then we've really ####ed up our democracy horribly. 

 

[cobalt_27]

Is it even early at 70?  I think that's the normal arrival date.

Gotta think by 73 if your Alzheimers doesn't come, you'd be lobbing in a call. 

65 or before is considered early onset.

Only about 3% of Caucasians age 65-74 have AD.

 

[Rich Conway]

I have  no problem with you either, Commish. And I don't even disagree with what you wrote about decisions coming up with regard to technology and cyber security. I simply believe that a distinction can be made between the theory surrounding those issues, and the details surrounding them. What I mean is that I fully expect Hillary to be able to comprehend the macro elements of cyber security to the extent that she can make intelligent decisions regarding it, and yet still have trouble understanding what the F11 button does on her laptop. One does not equate to the other. That's the gist of my argument.

The only other point that I take issue with you, assuming that I understand you correctly, is that several times you have inferred that a Clinton presidency would be just as bad, or nearly as bad, as a Trump presidency. If you believe that to be true, then I strongly disagree. If I have misunderstood you on this point, then my apologies. 

I'm not sure why you would think she is capable of this, given that every action she has taken shows she isn't.

 

[cstu]

I've never made a comparison between the two.  I've stated many times that I don't believe in comparing the candidates to one another.  I choose to compare them to a standard of what I think the President of the United States should be able to clear.  If neither clears that standard, they both fail.  If they both clear that standard, then there is some merit to making the direct comparison between the two.  Only then will I begin to compare and contrast the two.

With respect to making the distinction between the theory and the details, this is the problem.  Our politicians need to be able to connect the dots between what they legislate and the real impacts on people.  It's not enough to say "Well, in theory choice A is far superior" IMO.  You have to have the understanding yourself or surround yourself with people who have the understanding (and trust what they say).  I see this in her work with children and child healthcare.  I bring this topic up all the time as the measuring stick on how I weed out what she says against what she means/believes.  She'd be a terrible poker player.  It's so clear when she's talking about something she knows and believes.  It's absurd how different her behavior is (for the better) vs when she's pandering.

Curious which candidates you've thought met the standard of the POTUS?  In my lifetime the only two that I didn't think was worthy of being President was McCain (because he picked Palin) and Trump. 

 

[poopdawg]

Pretty certain you are Hell Toupee or one of his buddies. This is a thread you have never posted in. Interesting how you found my post from yesterday, since I intentionally misspelled the handle as Bayman, figuring you wouldn't notice the typo and would have to take the bait and it worked.

The baymen account has less than 500 posts in 11 years old and rarely, if ever posts in the Shark Pool. And I don't recall your input in the regular political threads in this forum. You claim to be a lurker, but all sparsely used accounts like this that suddenly start posting out of the blue and attacking people with detailed knowledge about this forum always say that.

Meanwhile Hell Toupee is the biggest and about the only defender of Eminence and always comes to his rescue whenever I say anything negative about Em. And, of course, as soon I criticized Em's absurd ranking of Matt Forte over Lamar Miller you instantly came in for the attack and immediately start talking about my "notebook" (tsk tsk, too obvious). Also you tripped up by using some words, phrasing he is fond of, particularly when he is cursing at people. And HT can't properly format an article to save his life and coincidentally it always looks something like the OP in this thread: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/735630-woman-sues-nephew-for-127k-after-she-fell-at-his-8th-birthday-pa/ 

The icing on the cake was demanding the mods check the IPS address, which means nothing. People who have been repeated banned come back the next day because they multiple IPS addresses or can circumvent that.

WTF is wrong with you?  

 

[Boston]

Just non-stop fibbing...another small example...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/29/theres-a-huge-problem-with-one-of-hillarys-favorite-campaign-stories/

 

[cstu]

Hillary rolls out plan to improve mental health care

 

[Megaton]

Just non-stop fibbing...another small example...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/29/theres-a-huge-problem-with-one-of-hillarys-favorite-campaign-stories/

The truth is unimportant.  It makes her seem human to her supporters so it is all good and it makes them feel better when voting for such an otherwise vile candidate.  

 

[The Commish]

Curious which candidates you've thought met the standard of the POTUS?  In my lifetime the only two that I didn't think was worthy of being President was McCain (because he picked Palin) and Trump. 

Well, my standard has changed with time....but initially Clinton cleared it.  Of course I was 18 at the time.  Him and Bernie....the more I watched and observed the more I realized the less and less they were representing me.  The Obama rhetoric had me on the fence, but ultimately I didn't trust that he'd do what he said he was going to do.

 

[BassNBrew]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI&feature=youtu.be

For those of you concerned about helping trump.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Hillary rolls out plan to improve mental health care

We definitely need to address this. 

 

[Colts Win]

Hillary rolls out plan to improve mental health care

Totally thought this was going to a meme.

 

[Rove!]

Down 3 in the LA Times poll and the hits just keep coming.  WikiLeaks, is said to have bomb or two yet to drop....

maybe it's time to jettison this horrible candidate, or start massively moving support behind the most qualified candidate in this race - Gary Johnson.

 

[pantagrapher]

lol

 

[TobiasFunke]

Down 3 in the LA Times poll and the hits just keep coming.  WikiLeaks, is said to have bomb or two yet to drop....

maybe it's time to jettison this horrible candidate, or start massively moving support behind the most qualified candidate in this race - Gary Johnson.

Yup.  If her opponent can go the next ten weeks without saying something impossibly stupid or obnoxious he'll have a very good chance of winning.

 

[BassNBrew]

Yup.  If her opponent can go the next ten weeks without saying something impossibly stupid or obnoxious he'll have a very good chance of winning.

I might hit the lottery too.

 

[squistion]

Down 3 in the LA Times poll and the hits just keep coming.  

maybe it's time to jettison this horrible candidate

Maybe it is time to quit referencing that outlier poll by the LA Times with the unorthodox methodology that uses the same respondents each time.

 

[The Commish]

Yup.  If her opponent can go the next ten weeks without saying something impossibly stupid or obnoxious he'll have a very good chance of winning.

I might hit the lottery too.

exactly....is there even a semblance of a bar anymore?  

 

[TobiasFunke]

Maybe it is time to quit referencing that outlier poll by the LA Times with the unorthodox methodology that uses the same respondents each time.

Sure, there's a lot of things that are unorthodox about that poll IIRC.  But at the same time, movement is movement, whether its that poll going from Clinton +1 to Trump +3 or the Monmouth poll going from Clinton +11 to Clinton +7.

However I think the most likely explanation is that it's just some undecided voters forgetting just how insane and dangerous and unqualified Trump is during the August lull.  Hopefully during September and October when attention is refocused  on the electionTrump will do Trump things and the momentum will halt about where it is now, or maybe even swing back to Clinton a bit. Fingers crossed.

 

[cstu]

Totally thought this was going to a meme.

Her inspiration.

 

[squistion]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 Aug 25

Trump chances:

538 polls-plus—25%

Betfair—21% 

538 polls-only—17%

NYT/Upshot—12%

Daily Kos Elections—11%

Princeton Election Consortium—4%

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 3h3 hours ago


Trump odds (8/30):

538 polls-plus—26%

Daily Kos Elections—26%

Betfair—23%

538 polls-only—21%

NYT/Upshot—12%

Princeton Election Consortium—5%

 

[Politician Spock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI&feature=youtu.be

For those of you concerned about helping trump.

 

[cstu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI&feature=youtu.be

For those of you concerned about helping trump.

"Better platform"

 

[TobiasFunke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI&feature=youtu.be

For those of you concerned about helping trump.

I think you're probably helping Trump anyway.  Polls show Clinton gets harmed more than Trump when third party candidates get a boost in the polls. And if the matching program is based on party affiliation it's worth noting that more Rs lean Clinton than Ds lean Trump, so it may actually match two people who would vote for Clinton if they were forced to choose between the two major party candidates.

But I'd think your bigger concern would be that you're helping the Democratic and Republican parties in the future. Third party success in one presidential election doesn't help such efforts in successive elections- in fact the opposite seems to happen in the last half-century.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I also enjoyed the part of the video where they chastised Clinton as being a friend of big business, as if a Libertarian candidate isn't the wet dream of Wall Street and Fortune 500 company boardrooms. Come on. If Johnson had a real chance of winning every single Wall Street investor and corporate officer in this country would throw him their support faster than you can say "income disparity."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I also enjoyed the part of the video where they chastised Clinton as being a friend of big business, as if a Libertarian candidate isn't the wet dream of Wall Street and Fortune 500 company boardrooms. Come on.

Both major parties are big supporters of corporate welfare, and they both support having the government pick winners and losers, block entry through regulation, and other stuff like that.  The Libertarians are at least consistent and serious when they talk about scaling back the ability of big businesses to get their way through lobbying -- when the government doesn't do much of anything, there's no reason for anybody to lobby it for favors.

 

[Politician Spock]

I also enjoyed the part of the video where they chastised Clinton as being a friend of big business, as if a Libertarian candidate isn't the wet dream of Wall Street and Fortune 500 company boardrooms. Come on. If Johnson had a real chance of winning every single Wall Street investor and corporate officer in this country would throw him their support faster than you can say "income disparity."

Wall Street wants two parties. It's a better return on their investment than having to own three.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

But I'd think your bigger concern would be that you're helping the Democratic and Republican parties in the future. Third party success in one presidential election doesn't help such efforts in successive elections- in fact the opposite seems to happen in the last half-century.

This is a really small sample size.