This thread is hilarious to me. You folks are arguing over the campaign strategy of a candidate you cannot vote for, or even against.

It really truly appears you are arguing just to be arguing. You aren't even arguing for anything, you're simply arguing against each other.

It'd be kinda sad if it wasn't funny.

It exemplifies a national trend worthy of discussion. Since you don't vote, it may not seem like that to you.

What it seems like to me is arguing for nothing. Ain't none of ya changing the other ones' minds. And ya ain't changing anything else either.

Also, it's not 'don't vote', it's 'can't vote'. Since I'm a felon, my mind is incapable of abstract thought and rational decision making.

Though it's not stopped anyone else from voting, I see.

The discussion has aspects that some may not be aware of since it's about someone who is prior military going for a civilian political position. The transition can be difficult beginning in even the campaign stages; because, it can take time. For example, this concept has been recognized by Congress for appointment to the civilian position of Secretary of Defense. Prior military must have been out of service for seven years (used to be ten) to be eligible. Looking at how this plays into how prior military who want to be politicians present themselves is purposeful.

Knocking the discussion sounds like sour grapes 'cause you can't vote. We didn't take that away from you. Live and let live.

A trick? Of course it's a political ad. The voters seeing it would know before it started just by who it is. I don't see any deception.

So do you think if she said flew xx combat bombing missions instead of bombed Al-Qaeda and the Taliban it would be acceptable to her potential voters? How about to a wider range of voters, like nationally?

It's not about her, it's about campaign style and substance.
We never argue, we discuss rationally and reasonably, carefully weighing the plus and minus points of each other proposals, attempting to arrive at a consensus acceptable to all parties, but most likely will agree to disagree, however probably with each party's views modified to incorporate good points from everyone contributions to the discussion. http://cellar.org/2012/bwekk.gif

PS, that's ex-felon.

Saying more than that she flew in combat, then moving on to another topic, gives people more time to remember about collateral damage that the specific groups she mentioned claim the US caused and wonder if she killed children, puppies and kittens.

There are three basic milestones worth stating: serving in the military, serving in combat, and extraordinary sacrifice/heroism. Beyond that, it can rapidly become TMI that works against you. Going after a civilian job requires a different approach from bucking for a military promotion. It can be a difficult transition for former military careerists.

Hmm... maybe if she said bombed immigrant criminals raping our women and stealing our jobs? ;)

but but but ... what about the children?

Won't someone please think of the children?

And how children argue.:sweat:

Goddamned right it is.

Yeah, yeah.

I ain't over it.