Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

... huh. That's the first time in a while I've seen someone actually state they're pulling most of what they're saying out of their ass. It's almost refreshing, I think?

It is.  We should hold onto this happy feeling.

[UXLZ]

I will admit that my opinions of both are heavily based on my intuitive reading of their character. Clinton gave me the freaks the first time I saw her eyes. Trump just made me gag a little.

You get used to the freaks. I now freak daily.

That said, there are justifiable reasons not to like Clinton, so don't feel that you're alone on this. But I would prefer to keep my reasons for disliking her outside of the corruption charges as that has been talked to death.

Fair enough. Would the Clinton Foundation fall under "corruption" charges? In terms of ordinary-person reasons for disliking her, I suppose her opportunism would probably be one.

[UXLZ]

... somehow I think your certainty wouldn't hold up to much scrutiny. Don't seem to care about that much, though, so eh. You do you.

I will admit that my opinions of both are heavily based on my intuitive reading of their character. Clinton gave me the freaks the first time I saw her eyes. Trump just made me gag a little.

What do you mean she gave you the freaks the first time you saw her eyes?

Though, to be honest here, I'm not really a fan of Clinton either, but not just because of the emails. If the two main third party candidates didn't suck so much, I'd be voting for them instead.

I mean she gave me the shakes, the chills, the feeling of "this person is bad bad bad bad news." I put a lot of faith in my intuition.

America's election system is unfortunately inherently flawed, it's basically a sealed fate that either Trump or Clinton will be president. Either will be awful, in the long run. Snake eyes.

[Frumple]

Considering basically every corruption accusation against the clinton foundation seems to keep turning out to be spurious, probably not.

[Criptfeind]

Putting your faith in your intuition is an acceptable thing to do for your personal decisions, but then when you turn that around and start proselytizing to other people about it with total absence of any facts you're going to be both ridiculed and unsuccessful with anyone who doesn't completely share your own intuition, which is a very personal thing.

I also didn't like Clinton when I watched her because of intuition. I still really don't. However, I've taken the time to examine what she's done and how she acts and what she says, and I compare this to what Trump has done, how he acts, and what he said, and I can't help but come to the conclusion that Trump is far far far worse, based on facts, and not feelings.

[RedKing]

I looked at my profile and realized I never set the birthdate, heh. Have that set now....

Anyway, UXLZ, he's just being snarky at you, though yeah out of context it is a bit condescending.

It's pretty condescending in context as well. It's totally possible to say "Ah. You clearly don't have the historical context for this thing, which explains why you think this, probably because of your age. Here's the truth that we've learned from history:" or something equally less shitty.

RedKing chose to go a different path.

I choose the path less traveled. And I *am* acting my age -- old and grumpy.

I have little use for someone who isn't even old enough to remember Colin Powell's epic Hail Mary PowerPoint at the UN that launched us into the most disastrous and unnecessary military adventure in American history, but feels that they can have a qualified opinion on Hillary Clinton because his gut says so.

Seriously....you're not even bringing a knife to a gunfight, you're bringing a Jell-o Pudding Pop to a gunfight.

[smjjames]

I will admit that my opinions of both are heavily based on my intuitive reading of their character. Clinton gave me the freaks the first time I saw her eyes. Trump just made me gag a little.

You get used to the freaks. I now freak daily.

That said, there are justifiable reasons not to like Clinton, so don't feel that you're alone on this. But I would prefer to keep my reasons for disliking her outside of the corruption charges as that has been talked to death.

Fair enough. Would the Clinton Foundation fall under "corruption" charges? In terms of ordinary-person reasons for disliking her, I suppose her opportunism would probably be one.

There's certainly a thing or two that is a bit shady, there's a lot of connections between the foundation and her campaign staff, but nothing that would be considered straight up corruption I don't think.

... somehow I think your certainty wouldn't hold up to much scrutiny. Don't seem to care about that much, though, so eh. You do you.

I will admit that my opinions of both are heavily based on my intuitive reading of their character. Clinton gave me the freaks the first time I saw her eyes. Trump just made me gag a little.

What do you mean she gave you the freaks the first time you saw her eyes?

Though, to be honest here, I'm not really a fan of Clinton either, but not just because of the emails. If the two main third party candidates didn't suck so much, I'd be voting for them instead.

I mean she gave me the shakes, the chills, the feeling of "this person is bad bad bad bad news." I put a lot of faith in my intuition.

America's election system is unfortunately inherently flawed, it's basically a sealed fate that either Trump or Clinton will be president. Either will be awful, in the long run.

She does come off as the stereotype of the shady politician at times, yes, and I've seen cartoons that show that kind of thing.

By comparison, you have many smoking guns of Trump using the Trump Foundation as a personal piggy-bank.

Yeah, this^

I have no idea if the violations of charity use have an expiration date because it seems like enough for the AG to force the charity closed due to past violations or if the violations have to be more recent. He also apparently used it to pay his kids Boy Scouts registration fee, which is all of 7 dollars.

[UXLZ]

Regardless, despite their rather patronizing comments about it earlier, RedKing is correct that I am young, but one thing you would do well to remember is that it is a double edged sword. It might mean I lack in some ways to be sure, but in others it means I am able to see things with clear and untainted eyes.

By comparison, you have many smoking guns of Trump using the Trump Foundation as a personal piggy-bank.

Is that a real thing?

I'd guess you're being sarcastic, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

Apparently it seems to be real. Shock.

[Criptfeind]

you're not even bringing a knife to a gunfight, you're bringing a Jell-o Pudding Pop to a gunfight.

 Well gramps... At least when you're dead in like 15 years or so we can all play with our pudding together in a gun free world. Sounds good to me.

It might mean I lack in some ways to be sure, but in others it means I am able to see things with clear and untainted eyes.

This might hold more weight if you try to look at things, instead of relying 100% on the taint of vague fact less feelings. Grandpa redking might be tainted by age, but at least he's still trying peer out at the world over his spectacles. You're not even really trying to look.

[RedKing]

Some might call it "clear and untainted eyes" (actually every new generation does), others would call it naivete.

I know it's fun to be a young firebrand and think you're shaking shit up. I was all about some Ross Perot in 1992. But Trump is no Perot.
And frankly, things weren't even all that broken in 1992. If there was one good thing George W. Bush did, it was to make his father look a hell of a lot better in hindsight.

And as Cript says, clear and untainted eyes only work if you're actually using them. Your eyes are not located in your gut.

[UXLZ]

Putting your faith in your intuition is an acceptable thing to do for your personal decisions, but then when you turn that around and start proselytizing to other people about it with total absence of any facts you're going to be both ridiculed and unsuccessful with anyone who doesn't completely share your own intuition, which is a very personal thing.

I also didn't like Clinton when I watched her because of intuition. I still really don't. However, I've taken the time to examine what she's done and how she acts and what she says, and I compare this to what Trump has done, how he acts, and what he said, and I can't help but come to the conclusion that Trump is far far far worse, based on facts, and not feelings.

My proselytization isn't so much "vote Trump, he's good and Hillary is awful" as it appears to be being treated as, it's "both Hillary and Trump are incredibly awful, please for the love of god don't elect them, but it's already too late."

I have taken the time to examine what she's done, how she acts, and what she says. I have compared it to Trump, and I have come to the complete opposite conclusion, based on both. Trump is like fire, Clinton is like cancer.

[Starver]

Tell me, learned friend, all about how electing Hillary Clinton will bring about the end of the world.

I didn't say the world would end, but either one of those two options is certainly going to make things  worse. Well, Trump has a 0.0000000000000001% chance of not being utterly awful, but it's a wee one. Hillary's is 0% flat.

...not really answering the question. I could tell everyone what I think you think (World War III with Russia, is it? Or the US becomes a minority white country, perhaps?), but better from your own mouth.

[Frumple]

... kinda unfortunately, youth doesn't make your view clear or untainted. Just clouded with hormones and tainted with inexperience. Which can lead to different conclusions, obviously enough, but yeah. Lack of preconception or exposure can often bring benefit sure, but, uh. That's pretty obviously not what's going on here, at the least. Preconception actually seems the major problem...

[Criptfeind]

Alright, that's good to know, when you had said you were basing your opinion on gut feeling, I guess I had assumed you were basing your opinion on gut feeling. Sorry for the misunderstanding then.

[smjjames]

you're not even bringing a knife to a gunfight, you're bringing a Jell-o Pudding Pop to a gunfight.

 Well gramps... At least when you're dead in like 15 years or so we can all play with our pudding together in a gun free world. Sounds good to me.

It might mean I lack in some ways to be sure, but in others it means I am able to see things with clear and untainted eyes.

This might hold more weight if you try to look at things, instead of relying 100% on the taint of vague fact less feelings.

Like how George W. Bush looked Putin in the eyes and said 'He's a good guy folks! I totally trust him to be an angel!'. I forget his exact words, but that's the same kind of thing, relying entirely on intuition.

Using your intuition is fine, but sometimes you need to overlay the facts on top of that.

Also, on Powell, I don't remember the UN powerpoint thing (or maybe I simply didn't see it), but I do remember all the accusations of Saddam having 'WMDs' and using that as a flimsy escuse to go to war. Though I learned more of that later, I was still somewhat politically naive during the first part of Bush 43's adminstration. Additionally, I voted bush in 2004 because I thought that since we were at war, it would be best to keep the same president.