I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Jesus Christ, please stop this obsession about votes.

Also, please stop obsessing about thumbs up and thumbs down.

As long as you talk about me, I'll address you.

It's honest.

(That'll be a dollar fidty for you first integrity lesson.)

Goldam. I came upon some posts by lash that are not thumbed down. Somebody's thumbs are getting tired.

Spoke too soon.

It has to be a few of them considering the 2 and 3 down thumbs. Or just 1 vengeful dweeb with several accounts. (they have little else to do in their basement hovel while mommy goes to the Piggy Wiggly to buy them more Twinkies and Scooter Pies)

Yeah, I understand. You have no control over your random creepiness. I'd gladly contribute a couple of dollars if you promise to buy a clue that your candidate has already lost.

Some people get so pissed off about thumbs up/thumbs down; it makes me curious how much anti-anxiety medication A2K'ers take on a daily basis. I mean, with the anonymous voting system telling you that anonymous internet people do/don't like you, it must be very stressful to your psyche.

(Personally, every time edgar posts something I think of it as Mark Twain yelling at me and I do get a little bummed out for a micro-second).

Mental health is very important and very under-treated in society today. Please see a healthcare professional if you're feeling at all bothered by the internet; it's unhealthy (really).

Are you as indignant about Colin Powell's use of personal email for governmental purposes, as well?

The thumbing shows immaturity and lunacy on the part of some. For example, how is it that a "I totally agree with you, ABC!" post will receive 3 or more ups while the post from ABC receives a -1 to minus 100 vote?

It becomes clearer and clearer in the politics and the religion/atheism/anti-religion threads that thumbing is nothing but showing favoritism and hatred which equals closed minds and its cousin, ignorance. If a poster offends someone so much, then place them on the ignore list or have the maturity to not respond.

Quote Finn:

No, you just want to break the country in two so one country will look like the blue areas and the second will look like the red areas.



Oh wait, the red areas DO look like the Confederacy, only with a few sparsely populated Western states added on for lebensraum.

What is the alternative Sturgis?

If 4 posters agree with [poster A] they could either:

1) stay silent with their agreement
2) give them a thumbs up
3) have each one reply with a "I agree" or "Nice post" or "Couldn't have said it better myself"

Option 1 kind of sucks because the "louder" among us (i.e. spammers and mindless zealots), even those who the majority of the board disagree with will seem to be over represented in the group.

Option 3 really sucks because then the board is full of posts that don't really add anything to the conversation but only serve to represent popular support for a [poster A's] opinion.


I don't see anything wrong with Option 2 personally. I really fail to see the lunacy.....not sure in what world you read that into.

Now for thumbs down, the argument is similar only reversed.

Hillary's and Colin's actions can't really be compared.

'Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” NBC chief Washington correspondent Andrea Mitchell reacted to a State Department Inspector General report criticizing Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while she was serving as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state.

Mitchell first dismissed the Clinton campaign’s defense, comparing Clinton’s behavior to that of her predecessor former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then declared the report to be hard to be seen as “anything but devastating.”

“It was not allowed to not return those records before she left the State Department,” Mitchell said. “She violated the official records act according to her own State Department IG appointed by President Obama. What you have shown just now, Mika, it completely undercuts the argument she’s been making for more than a year just as she’s trying to persuade voters she’s untrustworthy. I think the most surprising and shocking thing is their reaction. Claiming this is the same as what former secretaries did, comparison to Colin Powell. The facts are Colin Powell was the first secretary of state to ever use email. He used it specifically to try to launch the State Department into the new century and try to get people to communicate by email.”

“He was using it by example,” she continued. “He did use personal emails. He didn’t always separate them, but it was completely aboveboard — everybody in the State Department knew what he was doing. It was not, in fact, violating a rule that was put in place under Clinton, not after she left — It was put in place under Clinton and she was warned before hand of decades of this records act that prohibits you to leave the State Department, to leave any agency and not turn over your records. So, there are so many flaws in their argument. And you know, the politics, we’ll have to see how that plays out. But, I don’t see how this is anything but devastating given the fact they have been making a completely different argument now for more than a year.”

I'm not sure ignoring offensive posts/posters is the right answer.

It's a default I've gone to because I don't want to get into a full-on battle that I'm not convinced benefits the site, but I'm also not sure that letting them think they're correct is a better idea. Sometimes people do have to be told that others can see through their BS.

I"m mixed, as I'm no fan of repetition and much of a2k is repetitive, including by me. I don't like feeding, I won't say re trolls, but concerned forevermores. A key thought of mine is "why do you all feed?", giving even more room?
But I also don't like none of us answering.

I remember having this argument with a fellow whose name is escaping me, back on the basketball and race threads of not all so long ago. Thinking butterball, but that isn't it. He was smart, a lot of the time. He was very irritated that we didn't slam the biased trollers. I get that, but I am not here to slam every person I think is out to lunch with heartfelt argument, when the person is simplistic in the first place.

How does one determine if they have been thumbed up or down? And why would it bother anyone if they have been? I dont pay the least bit of attention to it.

I'm going to admit something here. I started thumbing some people down relatively recently - just as an ignorant reaction to all this talk about hating being thumbed down. Never been really sure what it means, except for it keeps me from seeing the posts of people I thumb down. I'm like you Rabel - I don't really get it, and now that I've admitted that, I feel better about just not paying attention to it going forward.

I don't vote people down, it's silly and it's petty. There is one joker who comes around a few days a week and votes down my posts, regardless of the subject of the thread. I only complain when it reaches the point that my posts disappear, and that's only happened once.

So someone can thumb someone else down, and the post disappears from the someone else's screen?

Several someones . . . i think it takes seven or eight down votes to accomplish that, and then it disappears from everyone's screens. It happened to a post of mine in a music thread--i posted Eddie Cochran's Summertime Blues--and i'm fairly certain it was the clown who votes down my posts routinely, using several sock puppet accounts.