Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

all hail HRCFollow

#252 Sep 14 2016 at 10:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Generally it's not the experience people are opposed to when it comes to career politicians, it's usually the corruption, conflicts of interest, not-criminal-because-loophole behavior, and things like that which turn people off from them.

The issue there is corrupt politicians, not career politicians. Obviously the longer you're around the more access you have to corruption but one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. We've had plenty of fledgling politicians who still managed to be corrupt and long term public servants who are not.

Quote:
Indeed; does it even matter what you do if you're not given a reasonable candidate to vote for that matches your values?

Of course it does. In aggregate, of course. Individuals are free to say their votes doesn't matter anyway and complain later. Also, candidates at the presidential level aren't given, they're elected. Clinton and Trump are the nominees because they're the ones who got the most votes. One of them will be president and people are free to bury their heads and ignore their obligations but that doesn't make them matter less.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#253 Sep 14 2016 at 10:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,145 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Obviously the longer you're around the more access you have to corruption but one doesn't necessarily lead to the other.
Precisely yes.

There's also other behavior an experienced politician will have that's problematic. They'll be better at giving non-answers and deflecting questions, they'll be better at sticking to scripted remarks and responses. These kinds of things can make them appear untrustworthy. The feedback loop is broken at this point. If you can't get an unscripted answer, your politician isn't being responsive to the electorate. Having actions and words not match up is also a problem, an experienced candidate has more of an opportunity for failed campaign promises to accumulate.

Quote:
Also, candidates at the presidential level aren't given, they're elected. Clinton and Trump are the nominees because they're the ones who got the most votes.
In political primaries that are increasingly not open to members of the general public who aren't affiliated with said party. Even if you are affiliated, the races will likely be all but decided before your state gets to vote.

The average voter gets 2 choices, and a couple of options for throwing away their vote if they don't like either of the major candidates. That's all assuming you're in a battleground state of course...

Edited, Sep 14th 2016 10:09am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#254 Sep 14 2016 at 11:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
In political primaries that are increasingly not open to members of the general public who aren't affiliated with said party.

Well, yes. Because those are political party primaries. Where the political party selects its nominee.

To each their own, but a candidate who understands the mechanics of government is more valuable to me than one who gives properly "unscripted" answers. That's pretending, of course, that even novice politicians don't prepare answers and use consultants.

Edited, Sep 14th 2016 12:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#255 Sep 14 2016 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,145 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, yes. Because those are political party primaries. Where the political party selects its nominee.
Which, in theory, is fine. But with only two political parties of any consequence there's a pretty limited selection already. If you had a half-dozen or so parties with a reasonable chance to win an election this wouldn't be as big of an issue. Non-affiliated voters could still choose between several candidates, and be more likely to find what they're looking for. As things are it greatly restricts candidate choice in the general election. The only people who really have a selection of a number of viable candidates are the primary voters in a few states early in the election cycle.

Jophiel wrote:
To each their own, but a candidate who understands the mechanics of government is more valuable to me than one who gives properly "unscripted" answers. That's pretending, of course, that even novice politicians don't prepare answers and use consultants.
The scripted "unscripted" answers are always amusing; for all his other issues baby Bush was the master of this.

Edited, Sep 14th 2016 11:24am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#256 Sep 14 2016 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
******
49,185 posts
At the very least we need four parties so we can separate Liberals from Democrats and Conservatives from Republicans.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#257 Sep 14 2016 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,157 posts
What we need is proportionate representation, not layers of structural disenfranchisement.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#258 Sep 14 2016 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,546 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
What we need is proportionate representation, not layers of structural disenfranchisement.

So as long as we have a proportional amount of blacks, Hispanics, queers, left-handed goat-fuckers and racists in positions of power to continue the oppression of the unwashed masses, it's cool, right?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#259 Sep 14 2016 at 9:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
continue the oppression of the unwashed masses

Have you tried a bath?

When I establish my kyriarchy, I'm going to concentrate on oppressing the washed masses. They're more pleasant to have around.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#260 Sep 14 2016 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,157 posts
Demea wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
What we need is proportionate representation, not layers of structural disenfranchisement.

So as long as we have a proportional amount of blacks, Hispanics, queers, left-handed goat-fuckers and racists in positions of power to continue the oppression of the unwashed masses, it's cool, right?

I'm not entirely clear on your meaning.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#261 Sep 15 2016 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,720 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
stumbling and falling
Trump stumbled and fell on a 13 year old girl, but that's OK with the GOP.


Huh? No clue what you're talking about here, so kinda hard to be "OK" with it. Maybe tell me something that folks who are not in the liberal echo chamber have heard about?

You didn't know he's got an impending trial for raping a teenage girl?


I didn't know it was being treated, even by the left leaning media, as anything more than an absurdity, much less that anything has or will come of it, and much less that if something does come of it, and if it were to turn out to be legitimate, that the GOP would be "OK" with it.

You kinda jumped several steps in there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#262 Sep 15 2016 at 4:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,720 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Having pneumonia isn't indicative of overall health. Healthy people get pneumonia.
Sure. So it's no big deal to say she's got pneumonia and will take a few days off to recover, right? Cause it's not a sign of bad health, right? Again, that logic goes both ways Joph.

No it doesn't. I asked why you deserve to know she had pneumonia. You don't deserve to know it on the basis of "it's not a big deal". That would actually be a reason why you don't deserve to know it -- since it's not a big deal (by your own admission), the only reason to be informed is for gossip.


But if it's not a sign of bad health, then how does that gossip harm her?

I do deserve to know if the person running for president has a history of loosing consciousness and falling. I do deserve to know if she has frequent cases of getting ill, since yes, repeated illness is a sign of poor health, and perhaps some underlying condition that is aggravated by external conditions (like high stress, not enough sleep, etc). I also kinda would like to know, before making a voting decision, whether the person I'm being asked to vote for has a habit of concealing this kind of condition. How wide is the circle of people "in the know" going to be in the future. If she gets this sick while president, is she going to inform say the cabinet officials in a meeting she's in? Members of congress she's interacting with that day? The commanders in the situation room where she's making critical decisions?

Yeah Joph. We kinda do deserve to know this. It's not just about her getting sick. It's about how often she gets sick like this, and whether this will impair her significantly in the future if she gets elected as president. She didn't just have a bad cough. I've seen the video of the fall. She was completely unresponsive. That's not just feeling a bit under the weather, and it's not even feeling a bit dizzy. She was completely out of it. She didn't track the car as it approached, and seemed to be completely unaware that it had stopped in front of her and the doors had been opened. She made no motions at all. Just stood there.

If it weren't for what I'm sure is a completely honest declaration by her staff about this being pneumonia, I'd think she had a seizure. Cause I've seen people with pneumonia, and I've seen someone have a petite mal seizure (multiple times, in fact). Her actions (or lack of them) looked like the latter, not the former.

Quote:
We both agree that healthy people get pneumonia and so pneumonia is not indicative of any lack of health above and beyond the illness itself. So, again, why do you deserve to know she had it?


Because by not disclosing it, and her having the incident she had happen on Sunday, it makes people suspect that it was made up after the fact (or was a convenient excuse for something that may have been unrelated). It also trails right into the narrative that Clinton hides everything until forced to reveal something. It makes people not trust her even more than they didn't trust her before. If she'd actually been able to keep it together, we wouldn't be having the conversation, but since she wasn't, we are.

Do I need to know every time a politician gets sick? No. But if that politician's sickness is so severe that they have an episode like she did? That's the point where you start wondering whether she's fit to serve in office. You can jump up and down and declare that this is unfair, but I suspect you're in the minority on that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#263 Sep 15 2016 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,139 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
stumbling and falling
Trump stumbled and fell on a 13 year old girl, but that's OK with the GOP.


Huh? No clue what you're talking about here, so kinda hard to be "OK" with it. Maybe tell me something that folks who are not in the liberal echo chamber have heard about?

You didn't know he's got an impending trial for raping a teenage girl?


I didn't know it was being treated, even by the left leaning media, as anything more than an absurdity, much less that anything has or will come of it, and much less that if something does come of it, and if it were to turn out to be legitimate, that the GOP would be "OK" with it.

You kinda jumped several steps in there.
And if it were a Democrat running for president accused of raping a child you and the entire right wing media would, like, never talk about it and never, ever give it any credence whatsoever and never, ever, EVER say it was a reflection on his character.

Heh. heheheh. HAHAHHAHAHAHA
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#264 Sep 15 2016 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,351 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
stumbling and falling
Trump stumbled and fell on a 13 year old girl, but that's OK with the GOP.


Huh? No clue what you're talking about here, so kinda hard to be "OK" with it. Maybe tell me something that folks who are not in the liberal echo chamber have heard about?

You didn't know he's got an impending trial for raping a teenage girl?


I didn't know it was being treated, even by the left leaning media, as anything more than an absurdity, much less that anything has or will come of it, and much less that if something does come of it, and if it were to turn out to be legitimate, that the GOP would be "OK" with it.

You kinda jumped several steps in there.
And if it were a Democrat running for president accused of raping a child you and the entire right wing media would, like, never talk about it and never, ever give it any credence whatsoever and never, ever, EVER say it was a reflection on his character.

Heh. heheheh. HAHAHHAHAHAHA


Child rape is beneath them. The real scandals all involve bowing to Japanese prime ministers and standing under umbrellas held by US marines. I mean, the right wing media really has their priorities straight. Those dirty leftists out there are burning American flags and sitting down for the sacred national anthem while the possibility of child rape just isn't a big deal at all.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#265 Sep 15 2016 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,720 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
And if it were a Democrat running for president accused of raping a child you and the entire right wing media would, like, never talk about it and never, ever give it any credence whatsoever and never, ever, EVER say it was a reflection on his character.


Never talk about it? Probably not true. Talk about it to the extent the allegations have merit? Sure. But then you have to ask yourself why, in a journalism field chock full of people who lean heavily Left, the only folks talking about this in a serious manner are a few blog sites. Now maybe they're all sitting on the story, in order to wait to "suddenly discover" it just days before the election, when it'll do tons of damage and there's not enough time for a rebuttal. That's a possibility, I suppose. Honestly, I have no clue and frankly no real dog in the hunt here. I'm in "drink heavily and hope things work out ok" mode, remember?

I am curious, however, how this in any way changes the facts regarding Hillary Clinton. I guess I just don't get the tactic of responding to comments or allegations about one person by spinning off and making counter allegations against someone else. Why not defend against the existing allegations. Two wrongs don't make a right. So you respond to a statement about Clinton stumbling, seen in plain sight and recorded on video, with a completely out from left field remark about something alleged about Trump? I don't see how that makes any sense except as a means of distracting attention away from the topic at hand. If you don't think what happened with Clinton on Sunday is a big deal, then just say so and maybe even explain why you think so. But when you inject an obvious topic change into the thread, it suggests that you don't really have a response to the issue with Clinton.


Hey. We can talk about all sorts of things about Trump if you want. Start a thread on the subject. I'll probably join you in mocking Captain Combover. And if we want to discuss the allegations you mentioned, we can do that too. But to bring it up here just means you're avoiding the subject at hand.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#266 Sep 15 2016 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,720 posts
Quote:
Child rape is beneath them. The real scandals all involve bowing to Japanese prime ministers and standing under umbrellas held by US marines. I mean, the right wing media really has their priorities straight. Those dirty leftists out there are burning American flags and sitting down for the sacred national anthem while the possibility of child rape just isn't a big deal at all.


There's also the issue of whether one thing is actual fact, while the other is allegation. I'll point out, again, that it's not just the GOP who is ignoring this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#267 Sep 15 2016 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If it weren't for what I'm sure is a completely honest declaration by her staff about this being pneumonia, I'd think she had a seizure. Cause I've seen people with pneumonia, and I've seen someone have a petite mal seizure (multiple times, in fact). Her actions (or lack of them) looked like the latter, not the former.

Thanks for your 100% uninformed and ass-pulled medical diagnosis there, Dr. Giuliani Smiley: laugh
Quote:
You can jump up and down and declare that this is unfair, but I suspect you're in the minority on that.

No one is "jumping up and down", I'm asking you why you deserve to know when someone has a mild illness that is not indicative of poor health and you're giving extremely weak answers that really boil down to "because Clinton".

Edited, Sep 15th 2016 9:43pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#268 Sep 15 2016 at 8:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,720 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If it weren't for what I'm sure is a completely honest declaration by her staff about this being pneumonia, I'd think she had a seizure. Cause I've seen people with pneumonia, and I've seen someone have a petite mal seizure (multiple times, in fact). Her actions (or lack of them) looked like the latter, not the former.

Thanks for your 100% uninformed and ass-pulled medical diagnosis there, Dr. Giuliani Smiley: laugh

Given that we aren't hearing from any medial professionals about her health condition, it's reasonable for us non professionals to speculate. Now, if she were willing to allow a third party doctor to give her a full examination and report on any findings of note to the public (that's us), then we'll have a medical diagnosis we can take as truth. Right now, we have political spin.


Quote:
[quote]You can jump up and down and declare that this is unfair, but I suspect you're in the minority on that.

No one is "jumping up and down", I'm asking you why you deserve to know when someone has a mild illness that is not indicative of poor health and you're giving extremely weak answers that really boil down to "because Clinton".


Mild illnesses do not cause the kind of symptoms we're talking about Joph. Even if this really is pneumonia, that's not a mild illness. People die from pneumonia all the time. Let's not forget that at first it was allergies. Now it's pneumonia. What's it going to change to the next time she collapses or something?

This is somewhat of the point. It's getting to the point where people are just assuming whatever she says about pretty much anything at all is a lie. Because her pattern so far bears that out. And every time something comes along that shows that something she said previously was a lie, she has some excuse for it, and then insists that "this time", it's the last lie. Um... Why should we believe her?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#269 Sep 15 2016 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Even if this really is pneumonia, that's not a mild illness. People die from pneumonia all the time.

It's pretty funny that you agreed with me multiple times that pneumonia is not a serious illness and now you're suddenly "OMG PNEUMONIA!!!!!111!!" about it when you're desperate for reasons why Clinton was so naughty to not tell you that she had it Smiley: laugh

Keep being you, I guess.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#270 Sep 15 2016 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,139 posts
gbaji wrote:
I guess I just don't get the tactic of responding to comments or allegations about one person by spinning off and making counter allegations against someone else..
You don't "get" a tactic you've personally used hundreds of times (that I've read in 9 1/2 years, anyway)?

Really?

Do you have dementia?


EDIT: Stoopid fractionSmiley: mad


Edited, Sep 15th 2016 10:14pm by Bijou
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#271 Sep 15 2016 at 10:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,060 posts
Can't we all just agree that she was probably on the rag and move on?

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#272 Sep 15 2016 at 10:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,314 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
EDIT: Stoopid fractionSmiley: mad
Decimals might be easier. Smiley: tongue
#273 Sep 15 2016 at 10:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nexa wrote:
Can't we all just agree that she was probably on the rag and move on?

At 70? She's more powerful than I thought.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#274 Sep 16 2016 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
******
49,185 posts
gbaji wrote:
Mild illnesses do not cause the kind of symptoms we're talking about Joph.
I know you've seen a doctor once which makes you a doctor as well, but mild illnesses do cause those kinds of symptoms all the time.
gbaji wrote:
Because her pattern so far bears that out.
It's called being a politician. She lies, Trump lies, Obama lies, both Bushes lied, Reagan, etc. They all do, it's their job to. The better question is why are you pretending it's suddenly a big deal? I mean, besides it's a Democrat in question.

Edited, Sep 16th 2016 1:48pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#276 Sep 16 2016 at 8:39 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,488 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
stumbling and falling
Trump stumbled and fell on a 13 year old girl, but that's OK with the GOP.


Huh? No clue what you're talking about here, so kinda hard to be "OK" with it. Maybe tell me something that folks who are not in the liberal echo chamber have heard about?

You didn't know he's got an impending trial for raping a teenage girl?


I didn't know it was being treated, even by the left leaning media, as anything more than an absurdity, much less that anything has or will come of it, and much less that if something does come of it, and if it were to turn out to be legitimate, that the GOP would be "OK" with it.

You kinda jumped several steps in there.

So, rape trials are just inconsequential fluff pieces? Or only if it's the uber-rich or politicians? Or only if it's Republicans? Please, help a brother out here. Why should rape cases not be treated seriously? Especially when they're connected to a known, convicted, billionaire pedalphile?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#277 Sep 16 2016 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,351 posts
Debalic wrote:
pedalphile?


Google Search wrote:
Someone who is interested in bicycles,unicycles,and tricycles.


Smiley: confused
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#278 Sep 16 2016 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Trump fucks tricycle motors, is what he's saying.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#279 Sep 16 2016 at 9:27 AM Rating: Good
******
49,185 posts
    (•_•)             
    ( •_•)>⌐■-■    Poppin' a wheelie.   
    (⌐■_■)           
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#280 Sep 16 2016 at 9:31 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,488 posts
I can't remember what words are banned and which ban evasion methods work anymore. I would think the intent was clear.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#281 Sep 16 2016 at 10:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The wraith of Kao will return to ban you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#282 Sep 16 2016 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,060 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Nexa wrote:
Can't we all just agree that she was probably on the rag and move on?

At 70? She's more powerful than I thought.


No one tells HRC when she's done bleedin but HRC.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#283 Sep 16 2016 at 10:26 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,488 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The wraith of Kao will return to ban you.

I have plenty of spider pics to torture him with.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#284 Sep 16 2016 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
***
3,025 posts
America culture demands that we go to work, even if we are sick with a cold or flu, so it's not surprising that Hillary didn't follow her doctor's orders to rest and instead go to the memorial service on 9/11/16. Being sick and standing in the sun on a hot day, was a recipe for becoming dehydrated and faint.

I been there and done that more times then I can remember. It's something that runs in my family, where even not sick, we can become faint when it hot. One of my daughters works out door from August to mid October and everyone, that works around her, knows to get her salty food if she starts to feel ill. Thankfully the pickle sellers also know her problem with sun and heat.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#285 Sep 16 2016 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,243 posts
Brown chicken brown cow
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#286 Sep 16 2016 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Chocolate Easter eggs and chocolate milk?

Is that what Clinton eats? No wonder she's not feeling well.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#287 Sep 16 2016 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,321 posts
ElneClare wrote:
America culture demands that we go to work, even if we are sick with a cold or flu, so it's not surprising that Hillary didn't follow her doctor's orders to rest and instead go to the memorial service on 9/11/16. Being sick and standing in the sun on a hot day, was a recipe for becoming dehydrated and faint.
That's got nothing to do with culture and everything to do with how the GOP would've gone on and on about how she never attended the memorial (which means she's unAmerican and/or simply hates America) and what a weak *** excuse "being sick" was.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#288 Sep 16 2016 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,546 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Demea wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
What we need is proportionate representation, not layers of structural disenfranchisement.

So as long as we have a proportional amount of blacks, Hispanics, queers, left-handed goat-fuckers and racists in positions of power to continue the oppression of the unwashed masses, it's cool, right?

I'm not entirely clear on your meaning.

When you say "proportionate representation will help fix these problems", what you really mean is "traditionally marginal viewpoints more closely align with my preferred policies", but one does not necessarily lead to the other. Think about it this way: if we had "proportional representation" in the top 0.1% of wealth holders, it wouldn't necessarily lead to less income inequality.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#289 Sep 16 2016 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,157 posts
Demea wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Demea wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
What we need is proportionate representation, not layers of structural disenfranchisement.

So as long as we have a proportional amount of blacks, Hispanics, queers, left-handed goat-fuckers and racists in positions of power to continue the oppression of the unwashed masses, it's cool, right?

I'm not entirely clear on your meaning.

When you say "proportionate representation will help fix these problems", what you really mean is "traditionally marginal viewpoints more closely align with my preferred policies", but one does not necessarily lead to the other. Think about it this way: if we had "proportional representation" in the top 0.1% of wealth holders, it wouldn't necessarily lead to less income inequality.


I'm not talking about the identity politics version of "proportional representation", I'm talking about Proportionate representation in terms of elected officials political alignments. It provides a system where you can more dynamically influence the political feedback loop. As it stands, there is very little you can do to affect your elected officials, in order to effect your preferred policy agenda due to electoral mechanics; you end up with a small to very small set of options. Correlative studies have shown that public opinion has very little bearing on what types of bills get passed, largely due to things like strategic districting, including regional elections for non-regional seats, FPTP, etc.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#290 Sep 16 2016 at 7:02 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,546 posts
Gotcha, my mistake. If you really want to see some "strategic districting" (aka gerrymandering), check out the congressional district about a half mile from me.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#291 Sep 16 2016 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,720 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Even if this really is pneumonia, that's not a mild illness. People die from pneumonia all the time.

It's pretty funny that you agreed with me multiple times that pneumonia is not a serious illness and now you're suddenly "OMG PNEUMONIA!!!!!111!!" about it when you're desperate for reasons why Clinton was so naughty to not tell you that she had it Smiley: laugh


Bit of an excluded middle there. So there's no room between "mild" and "serious"?

Quote:
Keep being you, I guess.


Right back at you.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#292 Sep 16 2016 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So there's no room between "mild" and "serious"?

Technically you have mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe but "moderate" is less a classification in of itself and more a dividing line between when the illness is treatable on an out-patient basis (antibiotics and rest) or requires hospitalization. Since Clinton's pneumonia never required anything but out-patient physician's care it never rose out of the "mild" end of the spectrum. So, yes, it was always a mild illness.
Quote:
Right back at you.

Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#293 Sep 19 2016 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,145 posts
ElneClare wrote:
America culture demands that we go to work, even if we are sick with a cold or flu
That's when you say "I'm working from home today," check e-mail a couple of times, and watch some PBS kids. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#294 Sep 19 2016 at 12:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,720 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So there's no room between "mild" and "serious"?

Technically you have mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe but "moderate" is less a classification in of itself and more a dividing line between when the illness is treatable on an out-patient basis (antibiotics and rest) or requires hospitalization. Since Clinton's pneumonia never required anything but out-patient physician's care it never rose out of the "mild" end of the spectrum. So, yes, it was always a mild illness.


Or she treated as mild something that wasn't. Hence the whole "collapsing on the curb" bit. You're trying to play label games with the illness itself, but what's more important is the impact it had on her, and how she handled that. Which, in both cases, was "bad".

And again, this all assumes that it was pneumonia that caused her collapse, and not something else. So I suppose she had pneumonia when she passed out and fell back in 2012, causing her to get a concussion bad enough that she had to be hospitalized and ultimately retire from her position as SoS? Oh wait. That time it was a flu that caused dehydration, which caused her to pass out. Gee. Seems like they love to dip into that particular well.

She sure seems to pass out and fall a heck of a lot. From the flu. Or pneumonia. Or whatever. I'm sure it's nothing to worry about though.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#295 Sep 19 2016 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Or she treated as mild something that wasn't. Hence the whole "collapsing on the curb" bit.

Hence the whole "wasn't hospitalized" bit. Again, there's an actual point where pneumonia is considered serious.

"What? I never said I get to know about every minor illness. It's just that I should get to know about every other illness -- oh, and it should be completely my call on what illnesses count or not because labels are dumb!"

Keep whining about me actually using terms and definitions and stuff when all you want to do is throw a hissy fit and those dumb ole words are getting in your way but we actually use these terms for a reason. And, sadly for you, the reason isn't political.
Quote:
causing her to get a concussion bad enough that she had to be hospitalized and ultimately retire from her position as SoS

Wait... you think she retired as Sec. of State because of that?? Honestly?? Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Hooo-boy. Did that one come from your Dinesh D'souza newsletter or was it printed inside your tin foil hat? Clinton made clear before the 2012 election that she didn't plan to serve a second term but would only stay on until a successor was confirmed. She had her injury in December 2012. Holy Christ, you're a goddamned tool who'll just believe anything aren't you?

Edited, Sep 19th 2016 2:42pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#296 Sep 19 2016 at 1:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,145 posts
Old people. Smiley: oyvey

I'd find all this much more interesting if all the other candidates weren't 60+ as well. At this point it's like a bunch of geriatrics at the nursing home debating who's going to drop next.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#297 Sep 19 2016 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,185 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Holy Christ, you're a goddamned tool who'll just believe anything aren't you?
Well that's just demonstrably false. He refuses to believe facts.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#298 Sep 19 2016 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll note as well that people leaving cabinet offices after a single term is nothing remotely interesting. Clinton/Kerry, Powell/Rice, Christopher/Albright... Bush Sr and Reagan both had a grab bag of people serving. Including the awesomely named "Eagleburger".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#299 Sep 19 2016 at 2:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,720 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Or she treated as mild something that wasn't. Hence the whole "collapsing on the curb" bit.

Hence the whole "wasn't hospitalized" bit.


I'm not sure how deciding to not go to the hospital (or apparently receive any treatment at all) magically makes an illness "mild". It doesn't work that way.

Quote:
Again, there's an actual point where pneumonia is considered serious.


Like maybe when you're passing out as a result?

Quote:
Quote:
causing her to get a concussion bad enough that she had to be hospitalized and ultimately retire from her position as SoS

Wait... you think she retired as Sec. of State because of that?? Honestly?? Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh


There were a number of factors. I didn't word that particularly well (happens when I try to be brief and conflate two ideas into one statement). The implication here is that, just as this fall wasn't really caused by pneumonia, her previous one wasn't caused by the flu either. If that is the case, then she may have been aware of her health problems well ahead of time and been planning on moving out of the position. The timing of Obama's re-election made that a more clear choice, obviously. It's like you aren't aware that speculation about her health haven't been swirling around for years now, and that this incident fits right into those speculations.

Quote:
Clinton made clear before the 2012 election that she didn't plan to serve a second term but would only stay on until a successor was confirmed. She had her injury in December 2012.


Uh huh. I'm aware of that. Again, I'm examining the possibility that her fall wasn't caused by the flu back then or pneumonia now and following the logic if that is true. The larger point is that she was unable to finish out her term as planned. Now, if you approach this from the perspective of someone who was already planning on leaving for unrelated reasons, and then just happened to suffer an illness which caused her to not be able to fill her duties for the last couple months of her term, then that's all just coincidence, right? But if you approach this from the perspective of someone who has some kind of neurological disorder, and doesn't want the public to become aware of this (thinking it can be hidden from public view better if not in so public a position as SoS), one might start the process of getting out of that spotlight as soon as possible.

It's impossible for us to know what went on behind the scenes here. But that's kinda the point. The public perception of her trustworthiness on this (and other things) is pretty darn low. This makes theories like this seem more plausible than than they would otherwise. Which is somewhat of a problem when you're running for president. Again, I'm not trying to insist I know what is true and what isn't. I'm commenting on how her actions and events surrounding her appear to many people. And the pattern certainly does look like there's more to Clinton's health problems than the occasional flu or pneumonia which magically results in the exact same symptom. Especially when said symptom isn't something normally associated with such illnesses.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#300 Sep 19 2016 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,720 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'll note as well that people leaving cabinet offices after a single term is nothing remotely interesting. Clinton/Kerry, Powell/Rice, Christopher/Albright... Bush Sr and Reagan both had a grab bag of people serving. Including the awesomely named "Eagleburger".


How many of those people also were hospitalized during the last couple months of said term though. She wasn't able to finish the planned term. Which raises concerns in terms of serving as president.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#301 Sep 19 2016 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Clinton made clear before the 2012 election that she didn't plan to serve a second term but would only stay on until a successor was confirmed. She had her injury in December 2012.
Uh huh. I'm aware of that.

No you weren't. I mean, I get that now you'll desperately try to turn "She resigned because she was hospitalized two months after she said she'd resign" into some other asinine thing but I'll just tell you right now: no on believes you when you insist that you knew that. You didn't. You were just repeating some bullshit blog or radio host or God only knows where you get your conspiracy theories from these days. But you had no idea.
Quote:
She wasn't able to finish the planned term

Cabinet members don't have set terms. They serve at the pleasure of the president or until they decide to take a powder. But I'm sure you "knew" that as well.

Edited, Sep 19th 2016 4:47pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 75 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (75)