Life of a Female Chess Player Pt. II: Competition
Sort:
Apr 16, 2016
0
#123
Progressant a écrit :
Why does this thread exist?
1. to let u ask "why" ?
2. to promote chess, competition,
3. females too
I'm here for part 3. because i'm a patzer, i play competitions, no results;
to play with women is interesting, and in case u lose, u know why.
I'm born to lose, so you know what ? I'm happy.
looping from the A team
Apr 16, 2016
0
#124
ab121705 a écrit :
actually I will be voting for HIllary, not because I think she's capable of changing much, but because I think she is the best qualified in a field of weak candidates. I don't think anyone else is even close. Her gender is NOT an issue for me. I hope and believe she will be our next president.
None of that really has anything to do with this thread
well, as far as chess is life, potus election a competition, Hillary seems still a female, well ...
it is directly connected to the topic ! IMPRIMATUR !!!!
trysts wrote:
ab121705 wrote:
actually I will be voting for HIllary, not because I think she's capable of changing much, but because I think she is the best qualified in a field of weak candidates. I don't think anyone else is even close. Her gender is NOT an issue for me. I hope and believe she will be our next president.
None of that really has anything to do with this thread
Best qualified to organize coups, bomb countries to oblivion, laugh at heads of State being murdered, support the horrible governments of Saudi Arabia and Isreal as they murder thousands of innocent people, etc., etc. It's clear to me that when someone says they're voting Hillary because she is "best qualified", that they have no moral compass or are just breathtakingly ignorant.
Trysts, your posts are long on cliches, short on specifics. Please enlighten me, in my breathtaking ignorance. I said Hillary is the best available from a field of weak candidates (that's pretty much how it always is). Please, in your snarkiest, most self-righteous tone, set me right with facts and data, not generalizations. Which candidate is the one who would be so different from the rest? Really things have not changed much at top levels of government; the stuff you claim she has done has always been done. Enough snide cliches; let's hear some facts? Who's your bright shining candidate who's going to make all the difference?
Progressant wrote:
Why does this thread exist?
Why are you posting in this thread? why do you exist?
trysts wrote:
Best qualified to organize coups, bomb countries to oblivion, laugh at heads of State being murdered, support the horrible governments of Saudi Arabia and Isreal as they murder thousands of innocent people, etc., etc. It's clear to me that when someone says they're voting Hillary because she is "best qualified", that they have no moral compass or are just breathtakingly ignorant.
tellin it like it is!
Apr 16, 2016
0
#128
ab121705 wrote:
trysts wrote:
ab121705 wrote:
actually I will be voting for HIllary, not because I think she's capable of changing much, but because I think she is the best qualified in a field of weak candidates. I don't think anyone else is even close. Her gender is NOT an issue for me. I hope and believe she will be our next president.
None of that really has anything to do with this thread
Best qualified to organize coups, bomb countries to oblivion, laugh at heads of State being murdered, support the horrible governments of Saudi Arabia and Isreal as they murder thousands of innocent people, etc., etc. It's clear to me that when someone says they're voting Hillary because she is "best qualified", that they have no moral compass or are just breathtakingly ignorant.
Trysts, your posts are long on cliches, short on specifics. Please enlighten me, in my breathtaking ignorance. I said Hillary is the best available from a field of weak candidates (that's pretty much how it always is). Please, in your snarkiest, most self-righteous tone, set me right with facts and data, not generalizations. Which candidate is the one who would be so different from the rest? Really things have not changed much at top levels of government; the stuff you claim she has done has always been done. Enough snide cliches; let's hear some facts? Who's your bright shining candidate who's going to make all the difference?
I already named some of the reasons, which you didn't address. You must like when the U.S. invades and bombs nations and overthrows governments? If you don't, then vote for an anti-war candidate. A war has every crime imaginable involved in it, so if you don't like your government committing crimes, and you think the U.S. election system is not a fraud and can actually change this country, then Jill Stein seems to be the best option in this election.
Jill Stein is not in the field of available candidates. She's not going to get nominated; she's not on the radar. not going to get elected. I would probably vote for her if she was even available. I do think the Green Party has great ideas and environmental issues are pretty much the most important. I don't know enough about her to know her other qualifications.
Apr 16, 2016
0
#130
Yes, she is "in the field of available candidates". Do you mean she's not on your TV set?
okay so vote for her; have it your way
I'd love to see a woman president, but Elizabeth Warren isn't running, so I'm committed to Bernie Sanders. If he doesn't win the nomination, and chooses not to run as a third-party candidate, then I'm voting for Jill Stein--there's no way I could vote for HRC or any Republican running.
I wanted to be for Bernie, as the next least bad option, but he is long on big ideas and catch-phrases, short on specifics. In the few interviews I've seen, he seems incoherent. A bunch of hot air. Big ideas, no substance. He'll accomplish nothing.
I could actually campaign for Jill, but that's probably going to have to wait until next time around
ab121705, watch The Young Turks on youtube and forget the main-stream media. CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, all they do is either show Trump or talk about him. Any Bernie coverage is dismissive or negative, with the recent exception of Morning Joe on MSNBC. The Daily News article was a hatchet job, it has been refuted by people like Juan Gonzalez who was present at the interview, but it gets repeated and repeated and repeated.
I will check it out; and you are correct, the mainstream media are monolithic corporations, part of the "establishment." Do you know of a website or 2 that clearly elaborate his goals, with specific plans for action?
I just saw a couple of interviews (on mainstream media) where he could not seem to give specific answers or plans, but who knows, maybe they chopped out the parts where he was effective.
TYT (The Young Turks) are a good source, The Majority Report, The Jimmy Dore Show, The Ring of Fire, hell, even Off the Grid with Jesse Ventura will open your eyes to the continuous bias and non-reporting of the main-stream media. There are other sites, but this is just off the top of my head. Check them out; they'll show you something.
definitely will - thanks!
Apr 16, 2016
0
#138
Dr. Jill Stein was a physician first, and here's what she said when asked why she became involved in politics:
"I have moved from the practice of clinical medicine into the universe of political medicine because it's the mother of all illnesses"
I disagree. I think politics is a symptom of larger illnesses.
yes
it's clear to me, it isn't for majority of US citizen , what we call democracy.