Atheistforums.com

http://qz.com/717255/ethicists-say-voting-with-your-heart-without-a-care-about-the-consequences-is-actually-immoral/ (http://qz.com/717255/ethicists-say-voting-with-your-heart-without-a-care-about-the-consequences-is-actually-immoral/)

QuoteFinding a candidate who embraces your values is understandable, crucial even. But fervent idealism, which places support for a certain candidate above all practical consequences of that support, is foolhardy. According to ethicists, it’s also immoral.


“The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,” says Jason Brennan, a philosopher at Georgetown University and author of The Ethics of Voting (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9704.html). “If they’re smart, they’ll vote for the candidate likely to best produce the outcome they want. That might very well be compromising, but if voting for a far-left or far-right candidate means that you’re just going to lose the election, then you’ve brought the world further away from justice rather than closer to it.”

“As a citizen, I have a duty to others because it’s not just me and my principles, but everybody,” says LaBossiere, who favors the utilitarian approach. “I have to consider how what I do will impact other people. For example, if I was a die-hard Bernie supporter, I might say my principles tell me to vote for Bernie. But I’m not going to let my principles condemn other people to suffering.”

So much truth is this article. These elections aren't about you, they are about everyone... and we do have a moral responsibility to make sure we do what is best for everyone, even if it means we swallow our pride.

I saw this article last night. It's good one.

I disagree to an extent.  Voting is my right, not my duty.  I don't feel I have a duty to others to try to, for instance, get Hillary elected when I really want to vote for Bernie.  Yes, the purpose of voting is to produce outcomes, but electing leaders is not the only outcome which can come of voting.  If Hillary were to lose by a landslide because half of Democrats wrote in Bernie Sanders, you don't think that would "produce an outcome"?  It most certainly would wake up liberals and alert them that you don't have to be a docile pussy to get elected.

The only "duty" I have is to myself, as it is for all of us.  Hell, I don't have a "duty" to vote at all.  I could stay home.  That is my right.  And it's STILL also my right to bitch about the outcome, even if I do.  The ONLY reason we mostly vote for the devil or his brother is the "throwing your vote away" crowd who have convinced a majority of us that you have to vote red or blue and if you don't there's something wrong with you, you're doing it wrong, you're not American.  Fuck that.  I AM an American and as an American I have an absolute right to vote however I like.  The only thing I MUST do is live with the consequences.  In this case, the consequences of writing in Bernie Sanders for President is stupid scary.  In this case I would not even CONSIDER not voting or not voting blue because the consequences are scary as shit.  But in a NORMAL election it is my RIGHT to vote for someone I actually want in the position and that is how I will vote.

This last time around I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Braley, and neither could a lot of others.  So we got Joni fucking Ernst.  I REALLY did not want that stupid cunt in office, but this is Iowa.  You don't sue a neighbor over their chickens getting into your yard and you CERTAINLY don't wait until they deliver eggs to you just to be neighborly to tell them that they're being sued.  I had no duty to keep that dumb bitch out of office, but her getting elected was certainly not the only "outcome" which was produced.  Democrats are now fully aware that you can't be a prick and keep an office in Iowa.  This isn't Wisconsin.  Next time they'll offer up "not a prick".  In the meantime, the dumb cunt is comedy gold.  She's like Goofy, except evil and with power.  And I am happy to report the state didn't implode.  It isn't on fire.  There were no plagues or floods which wouldn't have come via climate change anyway.  It wasn't the end of the world, just someone I disagree with politically and intellectually and hate with a passion in power.

So all this talk of "duty to others", that's all bullshit.  We all talk about how bad a Trump presidency would be, but it's just that; all talk.  I don't REALLY think he'd start a war with North Korea or accidentally fire a nuclear missile.  In his case it would have the very real consequence of appointing a Supreme Court Justice, but worst case that's just going to keep the crappy almost balance we already had.  It's going to delay progress, not kill us all.  If someone wants to write in Bernie or whatever that is their right.  They have no duty to help you elect any given person or help the other guy elect any given person.  We all have to live with the "consequences", but realistically what those "consequences" or depend on who you're asking.  For racist white businessmen a Trump presidency probably would have very few "consequences".  Voting can bring about change, even when it doesn't win an election.  If enough people wrote Bernie in, yes, Hillary would lose, but I can pretty much guarantee it would still produce "change" and there will still be an America around four years later to try again.

Huge gaping hole in this entire premise: that there is someone I can cast a vote for who is provably and objectively better for people than the alternative. Only people who consider Hillary to not be as bad as Trump will find this argument compelling. I am not one of those people. Both of these candidates are horrid, the only difference between them is the manner in which they are horrid.

Now let me ask you something. Are you anticipating a revolutionary, uplifting, reinvigorating 4 years under Hillary? I know you aren't. I KNOW you aren't. You know. You fucking KNOW what a bad candidate she is. But you'll vote for her. Maybe a little bit because you share some liberal values with her (or at least her platform) but mostly because you hate the fucking shit out of the people supporting Trump. If that isnt the very essence of "waving your flag" and voting because its all about "you and your principles" then frankly I don't know what is.

I'm sorry, but if you think Hillary's body of work aren't better than Trumps, then I think it is borderline possible to say you are objectively wrong, even with "better" being subjective.

The amount of people Hillary would help is statistically more than Trump would. And after watching the DNC, I am voting for a party that speaks of hope, of unity and just being decent human beings. I really think Hillary could be one of our better presidents. She reminds me in some ways of LBJ... hateable, does shit I disagree with but who fights his/her ass off to get shit done that makes the world a better place.

Quote from: widdershins on July 29, 2016, 07:39:42 PM
I disagree to an extent.  Voting is my right, not my duty.  I don't feel I have a duty to others to try to, for instance, get Hillary elected when I really want to vote for Bernie.  Yes, the purpose of voting is to produce outcomes, but electing leaders is not the only outcome which can come of voting.  If Hillary were to lose by a landslide because half of Democrats wrote in Bernie Sanders, you don't think that would "produce an outcome"?  It most certainly would wake up liberals and alert them that you don't have to be a docile pussy to get elected.

The only "duty" I have is to myself, as it is for all of us.  Hell, I don't have a "duty" to vote at all.  I could stay home.  That is my right.  And it's STILL also my right to bitch about the outcome, even if I do.  The ONLY reason we mostly vote for the devil or his brother is the "throwing your vote away" crowd who have convinced a majority of us that you have to vote red or blue and if you don't there's something wrong with you, you're doing it wrong, you're not American.  Fuck that.  I AM an American and as an American I have an absolute right to vote however I like.  The only thing I MUST do is live with the consequences.  In this case, the consequences of writing in Bernie Sanders for President is stupid scary.  In this case I would not even CONSIDER not voting or not voting blue because the consequences are scary as shit.  But in a NORMAL election it is my RIGHT to vote for someone I actually want in the position and that is how I will vote.

This last time around I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Braley, and neither could a lot of others.  So we got Joni fucking Ernst.  I REALLY did not want that stupid cunt in office, but this is Iowa.  You don't sue a neighbor over their chickens getting into your yard and you CERTAINLY don't wait until they deliver eggs to you just to be neighborly to tell them that they're being sued.  I had no duty to keep that dumb bitch out of office, but her getting elected was certainly not the only "outcome" which was produced.  Democrats are now fully aware that you can't be a prick and keep an office in Iowa.  This isn't Wisconsin.  Next time they'll offer up "not a prick".  In the meantime, the dumb cunt is comedy gold.  She's like Goofy, except evil and with power.  And I am happy to report the state didn't implode.  It isn't on fire.  There were no plagues or floods which wouldn't have come via climate change anyway.  It wasn't the end of the world, just someone I disagree with politically and intellectually and hate with a passion in power.

So all this talk of "duty to others", that's all bullshit.  We all talk about how bad a Trump presidency would be, but it's just that; all talk.  I don't REALLY think he'd start a war with North Korea or accidentally fire a nuclear missile.  In his case it would have the very real consequence of appointing a Supreme Court Justice, but worst case that's just going to keep the crappy almost balance we already had.  It's going to delay progress, not kill us all.  If someone wants to write in Bernie or whatever that is their right.  They have no duty to help you elect any given person or help the other guy elect any given person.  We all have to live with the "consequences", but realistically what those "consequences" or depend on who you're asking.  For racist white businessmen a Trump presidency probably would have very few "consequences".  Voting can bring about change, even when it doesn't win an election.  If enough people wrote Bernie in, yes, Hillary would lose, but I can pretty much guarantee it would still produce "change" and there will still be an America around four years later to try again.

So basically, your tl;dr is that because it's not obligatory and instead a right, it also means you have the right to be lazy and selfish.

And you're right, you do have the right to be selfish. But just know that is what you are being.

Quote from: Nonsensei on July 29, 2016, 07:40:31 PM
Huge gaping hole in this entire premise: that there is someone I can cast a vote for who is provably and objectively better for people than the alternative. Only people who consider Hillary to not be as bad as Trump will find this argument compelling. I am not one of those people. Both of these candidates are horrid, the only difference between them is the manner in which they are horrid.

Now let me ask you something. Are you anticipating a revolutionary, uplifting, reinvigorating 4 years under Hillary? I know you aren't. I KNOW you aren't. You know. You fucking KNOW what a bad candidate she is. But you'll vote for her. Maybe a little bit because you share some liberal values with her (or at least her platform) but mostly because you hate the fucking shit out of the people supporting Trump. If that isnt the very essence of "waving your flag" and voting because its all about "you and your principles" then frankly I don't know what is.

Bad, yes. Not anywhere as bad as Trump though.

The problem I have with it is "fervent idealists" essentially grouping the people who follow Sanders without examining their motives or knowing their reasons. This is lumping a group of diverse individuals under one roof. So what is their message? We don't want people to be idealists? And the same "voting with your heart", meaning what? All the Sanders followers have a love crush on their guy?

I daresay that the people that follow any candidate have stated reasons for it, not just emotional responses. It is an implied either/or argument I don't buy into.

Quote from: Nonsensei on July 29, 2016, 07:40:31 PM

Now let me ask you something. Are you anticipating a revolutionary, uplifting, reinvigorating 4 years under Hillary? I know you aren't.

Well, actually, you don't "know" what I think or feel. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 29, 2016, 10:56:48 PM
Well, actually, you don't "know" what I think or feel. 

Well what I do know is that you didn't deny my assertion, just got uppity about me making it.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 29, 2016, 08:04:47 PM
I'm sorry, but if you think Hillary's body of work aren't better than Trumps, then I think it is borderline possible to say you are objectively wrong, even with "better" being subjective.

The amount of people Hillary would help is statistically more than Trump would. And after watching the DNC, I am voting for a party that speaks of hope, of unity and just being decent human beings. I really think Hillary could be one of our better presidents. She reminds me in some ways of LBJ... hateable, does shit I disagree with but who fights his/her ass off to get shit done that makes the world a better place.

That talk of hope and unity and being decent is standard Democratic party line. Ive been voting since 2000 and I've fallen for it every time. It never pans out. We never get the liberal utopia we are promised, or really anything else we are promised.

As to the fighting her ass off to get shit done, I'll tell you the same thing I told my mother when she said something similar about Trump.

She likes him because he is a successful business man. She considers his business acumen to be something this country really needs, and having someone who knows "business stuff" will be beneficial.

My response was that yeah, he is probably a shrewd businessman. But its only a plus in a candidate if he intends to use that skill to serve the American people rather than himself. I can easily believe Hillary will fight her ass off to achieve the goals she cares about as president. I just don't believe those goals will be in alignment with the welfare of the American people. She's dead center, and in the pocket of a lot of rich and powerful people. She will take them into consideration before she takes us into consideration.

Quote from: Nonsensei on July 29, 2016, 11:17:29 PM
That talk of hope and unity and being decent is standard Democratic party line. Ive been voting since 2000 and I've fallen for it every time. It never pans out. We never get the liberal utopia we are promised, or really anything else we are promised.

As to the fighting her ass off to get shit done, I'll tell you the same thing I told my mother when she said something similar about Trump.

She likes him because he is a successful business man. She considers his business acumen to be something this country really needs, and having someone who knows "business stuff" will be beneficial.

My response was that yeah, he is probably a shrewd businessman. But its only a plus in a candidate if he intends to use that skill to serve the American people rather than himself. I can easily believe Hillary will fight her ass off to achieve the goals she cares about as president. I just don't believe those goals will be in alignment with the welfare of the American people. She's dead center, and in the pocket of a lot of rich and powerful people. She will take them into consideration before she takes us into consideration.

Mostly agree. Hillary has played the game long enough to know who she can piss off and who not to. She isn't going to discipline Wall Street and even if she opposes the TPP she hasn't strayed outside the party line in doing so. But knowing all that doesn't make her different or better than Obama or her hubby. Obama played the table in a very similar manner. He didn't do things that he could have done, and appointed Holder as Attorney General knowing he was a Wall Street boy.

What remains to be seen is if she empowers people like Elizabeth Warren and others who will oppose Wall Street. Warren opposed Obama on a few issues. The other point is her hubby has been in the seat for 8 years and is certainly a smart player, they both are. I'll take a Harvard lawyer with political acumen over a self aggrandizing egotistical bully. Center is better than far right.

Quote from: Nonsensei on July 29, 2016, 11:10:06 PM
Well what I do know is that you didn't deny my assertion, just got uppity about me making it.

If any 'uppity' is happening it is you.  You cannot know what I think or feel--so any assertion you make is simply guess work or simply false.  But I do find myself understanding why you have more of an affinity for Trump than Clinton.

QuoteI just don't believe those goals will be in alignment with the welfare of the American people.

Then you believe her track record is not indicative of what she would push as a president?

I am beginning to think the catastrophic disaster that a trump presidency could be, might just be what this country needs for the vast majority to ask themselves, "how the fuck did we allow these two parties to steal our country from us and how do we get it back?" And maybe, a Jefferson arises..

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 30, 2016, 12:36:35 AM
If any 'uppity' is happening it is you.  You cannot know what I think or feel--so any assertion you make is simply guess work or simply false.  But I do find myself understanding why you have more of an affinity for Trump than Clinton.

Still not denying what I said, and now trying to paint me as a Trump supporter despite my having repeatedly made it clear I consider Trump and Hillary to be equally shit and will be voting for neither.

The typical "you're either with us or against us" clannish bullshit trap everyone seems to love getting caught in during an election year. Way to let yourself be manipulated by the system.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 30, 2016, 02:18:46 AM
Then you believe her track record is not indicative of what she would push as a president?

No, and I explained why in the part of my post you decided to cut out.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 30, 2016, 02:18:46 AM
Then you believe her track record is not indicative of what she would push as a president?

She screwed the American people since she was First Lady of Arkansas ... same as her evil husband.  So yes, she will continue to do what her track record says ... but people are in the Matrix about that.

Quote from: aitm on July 30, 2016, 07:39:44 AM
I am beginning to think the catastrophic disaster that a trump presidency could be, might just be what this country needs for the vast majority to ask themselves, "how the fuck did we allow these two parties to steal our country from us and how do we get it back?" And maybe, a Jefferson arises..

Optimistic, but "a Jefferson arises" part is the problem. Look at the primaries we just went through. Why didn't we have more choice or different choices in either party? Between both parties we only had one individual who stood out as being for the people in Sanders. All the Republicans were pandering to the Evangelicals, and 2 people, Huckabee and Cruz, were Evangelicals. The reason Trump won was simply because he was the unique guy, not specifically an evangelical or a regular company guy.

Clinton won largely because she was a known quantity. Trump because of his uniqueness. The best candidate we had prior to Obama was Al Gore. Gore to me is as close to an ideal candidate as you can find; a vet, a man who can pass as religious and yet with a mind oriented to science, an intellect and a man who sees the future issues that are coming more clearly than most.

My only hope at this point isn't Clinton but who she brings in with her, who ends up Secretary of State and so forth. The primary system does a great job of filtering out Jeffersons, unfortunately. I'm afraid you will never see anyone of his capability in the White House ever again.

You can't have another Washington or Jefferson without slavery.  We can have another Lincoln, but Obama is no Lincoln.

I hope also, that whoever wins, brings in good associates.  I don't have much good feeling about Trump in this, he is only good to tear down the Berlin Wall of DC.  He isn't a builder, ironically.  The Republicans are anti-big-government ... and pro-big-business.  If you want that, vote that.  Democrats are pro-big-government and pro-big-business.  If you want that, vote that.  If you anti-big-business, you are out of luck, comrade.

PS - Americans may be too narcissistic to find the common good in themselves ... and so can't actualize it in public discourse or public action.  Per the OP, this may be the real reason voting your heart is a bad thing, at least in the US.

Quote from: Nonsensei on July 30, 2016, 08:10:38 AM
Still not denying what I said, and now trying to paint me as a Trump supporter despite my having repeatedly made it clear I consider Trump and Hillary to be equally shit and will be voting for neither.

The typical "you're either with us or against us" clannish bullshit trap everyone seems to love getting caught in during an election year. Way to let yourself be manipulated by the system.

I don't have to deny or not deny your assumptions.  And so you are not manipulated by the system?  Must live in another country then. 

If you don't like either, you are free to vote for Johnson.

Voting your heart is immoral only if what's in your heart is immoral.  Voting according some idiosyncratic formula dictated by the status quo is neither moral or immoral, unless the status quo is immoral, or immoral to some degree, in which case, you would be immoral to a proportionate degree.

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/heres-a-list-of-all-the-science-that-donald-trump-denies/ (http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/heres-a-list-of-all-the-science-that-donald-trump-denies/)

Meh, Hillary... Trump... basically the same... :roll:

QuoteVoting your heart is immoral only if what's in your heart is immoral.

You have the choice to stop something terrible, horrible, horrendous, etc. from happening if you swallow your pride and take an action for something kinda bad, kinda good.

You decide to do nothing because your pride tells you not to.

If that is what you do, then it is arguable that your heart is indeed immoral. You have a choice to make and choose to do nothing out of principle, leading to more people getting hurt. That is, by most people's standards, immoral.


Basically the train situation... except instead of pushing someone in the way of the train to save someone, you push everyone in the way of the train so that you can feel better about yourself.

In your case, you should vote for Hillary, because I assume you truly believe Trump would harm many people.  I would agree you might feel a moral obligation.  But I wouldn't in the choice between Hillary and Trump, because I don't know that Trump will harm more people than Clinton.  I could vote for Hillary, and indeed, I might, but not for any certainty or foreknowledge I have about Trump (or Hillary).  And I have no feeling of immorality about not knowing this with a high degree of certainty. 

Everyone determines for themselves what is moral for them, prioritizes their moral issues, and decides whether they should behave accordingly.  And of course, many people believe Hillary is the incarnation of the devil and will justify voting for Trump, much the way the religious right perceives the abortion issue and votes accordingly.  Given the nebulous quality of morality and ideological perceptions people have about good and evil, the morality argument seems somewhat like simply voting your conscience.

Now if you are talking about people being wrong by writing in Bernie Sanders or voting for Jill Stein, it sounds much like an attempt to keep everyone in line and voting as a block for the good of the Democratic party.  I think your morality argument won't get very far with Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein supporters.  I would guess many of them will be voting their conscience anyway, and won't feel immoral about not advancing the cause of the Democratic party.  They may be thinking longer term, and seeing voting for a third party as the only way of eventually pushing the Democratic party to the left, and anything less would seem immoral to them.  They might be kooks in your opinion, but I don't think you will convince them that they are being immoral.

QuoteThey may be thinking longer term, and seeing voting for a third party as the only way of eventually pushing the Democratic party to the left, and anything less would seem immoral to them.  They might be kooks in your opinion, but I don't think you will convince them that they are being immoral.

Change of the Democrats, as change of the Republicans, will come from within the party... not from without. That has little to do with morality and more just common sense. Look how much influence Bernie had by joining the party, of forcing the Democrats to address certain issues they wouldn't have otherwise. What third party has ever done that?

Same for the Republicans... look at how long libertarians and other far-right conservatives have been trying to make change with little to no effect. Yet once they joined the party, they managed to pull the party very far to the right in almost no time at all by forcing the mainstream to appeal to them.

Voting third-party at local level, state level... okay, that's fine and personally I think great because they actually stand a chance to win. But until those third parties can even win at a state-level, expecting them to make any difference at a national level without playing within the rules and forcing the major players to come towards their ideology or risk fracturing the party and turning away independents (who win elections) is, if not immoral, moronic.


And I say that as a Bernie supporter, with the caveat that I have always recognized him to be a one-trick pony type of politician. A very important one-trick, but a terrible president he would make nontheless. Bernie, Stein, all of them are more useful working to bring their fields of expertise and passion to a major party and using their independent appeal to force that party in their direction because that's just the way the system works.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 30, 2016, 09:52:51 AM
I don't have to deny or not deny your assumptions.  And so you are not manipulated by the system?  Must live in another country then. 

I'm only being manipulated by the system is the system's goal is to make me reject its two candidates.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 30, 2016, 09:52:51 AM
If you don't like either, you are free to vote for Johnson.

Well according to this article I shouldn't be free to vote for Johnson because doing so won't prevent the Trump apocalypse or whatever. Apparently I am obligated to supplant my own take on the situation with that of a Hillary supporter or I am amoral.

QuoteWell according to this article I shouldn't be free to vote for Johnson because doing so won't prevent the Trump apocalypse or whatever. Apparently I am obligated to supplant my own take on the situation with that of a Hillary supporter or I am amoral.

*immoral

And, if by your sense of morality, Trump would do less harm, then you would be morally obligated by your obligation to society to vote for him. The article isn't saying vote for Hillary, it's saying vote for who you find more morally appealing and, again, if you think the two are remotely similar morally (and I don't mean that as an insult to either, I mean their policies are so different that they cannot be similar) then it is immoral to not try to stop the greater of two evils.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 30, 2016, 11:22:48 PM
Change of the Democrats, as change of the Republicans, will come from within the party... not from without. That has little to do with morality and more just common sense. Look how much influence Bernie had by joining the party, of forcing the Democrats to address certain issues they wouldn't have otherwise. What third party has ever done that?

Same for the Republicans... look at how long libertarians and other far-right conservatives have been trying to make change with little to no effect. Yet once they joined the party, they managed to pull the party very far to the right in almost no time at all by forcing the mainstream to appeal to them.

Voting third-party at local level, state level... okay, that's fine and personally I think great because they actually stand a chance to win. But until those third parties can even win at a state-level, expecting them to make any difference at a national level without playing within the rules and forcing the major players to come towards their ideology or risk fracturing the party and turning away independents (who win elections) is, if not immoral, moronic.


And I say that as a Bernie supporter, with the caveat that I have always recognized him to be a one-trick pony type of politician. A very important one-trick, but a terrible president he would make nontheless. Bernie, Stein, all of them are more useful working to bring their fields of expertise and passion to a major party and using their independent appeal to force that party in their direction because that's just the way the system works.

I'm sorry Shiranu but I think you have this one all wrong. Trump was not a republican party insider. He hasn't even been a Republican very long. He bent the RNC over a barrel and fucked his way inside them with a gas powered dildo and when the mess resolved into something comprehensible again the party had reformed around him. The RNC didn't change from within. It was hijacked by some twit businessman with enough money to but a PR team that knew how to pander to idiots. Those idiots, by the way, include some of the libertarians you are suggesting have had no effect. Guess what- they have.

In my opinion change from within a political party is virtually impossible. The people running it are very comfortable with how it works and are not very interested in reform. They are also some of the most elitist pieces of shit that can be found in the country, and think absolutely nothing of the voters as evidences by some of the attitudes displayed in the leaked DNC emails. It takes the American people voting for an external candidate to actually make things change in a party. It shames me that the Republicans managed to do this but the Democrats couldn't Instead they went with the same old crap and let the DNC stagnate for another 4-8 years.

I do not mean trump, I mean groups like the neocons, the tea party, etc. who shifted the party to the right ( and now are losing their footing).

Show me where a third party candidate has made nearly the influence Bernie has as a dem...

Quote from: Shiranu on July 30, 2016, 11:26:16 PM
*immoral

And, if by your sense of morality, Trump would do less harm, then you would be morally obligated by your obligation to society to vote for him. The article isn't saying vote for Hillary, it's saying vote for who you find more morally appealing and, again, if you think the two are remotely similar morally (and I don't mean that as an insult to either, I mean their policies are so different that they cannot be similar) then it is immoral to not try to stop the greater of two evils.

You're right. The article wasn't expressly suggesting I should vote for Hillary, but by posting it I'm pretty sure that's what you were implying.

As to the question of their morals, I think they are far more similar than you would like. I imagine you are paying attention to the thing they say they will do once they are elected president. If you only focus on that, you would be right. Obviously from a social perspective Trump appears far more reprehensible than Hillary. However, those things they are saying are nothing more than a deception, carefully calculated to yield the most votes. What really drives these candidates is the same thing: self interest. They both want to be president so they can serve themselves and their political allies. Service to the American people don't even rate on their list of priorities, and they're both so rich and elite that they simply don't share the same sense of urgency that we do about issues. To put it simply, they want power. They are the type of people for whom the pursuit of power is a way of life and the meaning of life. They will say and do whatever they have to in order to get that power.

Nothing either of them say can be trusted to indicate what sort of president they will be.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 30, 2016, 11:38:21 PM
I do not mean trump, I mean groups like the neocons, the tea party, etc. who shifted the party to the right ( and now are losing their footing).

Show me where a third party candidate has made nearly the influence Bernie has as a dem...

Uh, why? Why are we restricting this to dems and then excluding Bernie? I thought the question was whether or not a party could really change from within.

Quote from: Nonsensei on July 30, 2016, 11:43:09 PM
Uh, why? Why are we restricting this to dems and then excluding Bernie? I thought the question was whether or not a party could really change from within.

Not restricting to dems, and not excluding Bernie. I'm just saying, show me a third-party candidate who has influenced the national dialog as Bernie did by working within the system, be it influencing the Democrats, the Republicans, or even Independents. The third-parties have historically been, at best, incorporated into one of the two major parties and shift them... but that's only after years of "strong" (for a third-party, so a percentage or two of the vote) showings. Most of the time they just fade away into the sunset.

Bernie Sanders, in one election, got the entire dialog shifted to the point the Democrats are now promising things they wouldn't have even discussed a year or two ago. It remains to be seen how many of those promises they will hold to, but if they want to secure the independent votes they got... then they will at least make an effort to follow through on a fair few of them.

The only similar example in recent time is the Tea Party hijack of the Republican party, for all the wrong reasons. But both those and Sanders have made more change in their short time as a member of a major party than they (or people who agreed with them) did in years of running as third-party.

The system simply is a two-party system. We can cry about that all we want, but the smartest thing is to be pragmatic and force them to appeal to our vote by "infiltrating" their party and showing them what people really want from within.

As an interested observer in the UK, it seems to me that Trump is potentially a lot more dangerous than Hillary, who basically represents the status quo. With Hillary you'd get more of the same, including more Middle Eastern wars, more corporate money corrupting whats left of your democracy and more breaks for her pals in financial services. With Trump, on the other hand, you simply don't know what you'd get, since he has no political track record and is unpredictable to say the least. However, given his clear proto-fascist leanings, its pretty much certain that whatever you'd get with Trump wouldn't be good.

There is an argument to the effect that both candidates are so awful that voting third party is the real principled choice, since it would help to undermine a deeply corrupted political system. After all, if you keep on accepting the lesser of two evils time after time, evils will be all that you'll ever get. I'm sympathetic to this argument, and if Hillary were running against someone else (say Kasisch or Cruz) then I think it would hold. But with Trump as the Republican nominee, I'm not so sure. Trump really could be very bad indeed- he looks like a would-be dictator, and I'm not convinced enough of the committment to rule of law and democracy in the Republican Party to rule out his becoming an American Putin.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 30, 2016, 11:22:48 PM
Change of the Democrats, as change of the Republicans, will come from within the party... not from without. That has little to do with morality and more just common sense. Look how much influence Bernie had by joining the party, of forcing the Democrats to address certain issues they wouldn't have otherwise. What third party has ever done that?

I have absolutely no reason to think that Sanders has changed the Democratic party.  He appealed to a more liberal faction of the party, some who were always there, and some who are new to politics and have never considered themselves affiliated with either party.  Hillary's nomination represents entrenchment of the status quo.  I have no reason to believe she will adopt any of Sanders' values, or create anything within the party of a Sanders nature.  Only time will tell, but at this point, the notion that Sanders had some kind of positive effect on the Democrats is conjecture.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 30, 2016, 11:22:48 PM
Same for the Republicans... look at how long libertarians and other far-right conservatives have been trying to make change with little to no effect. Yet once they joined the party, they managed to pull the party very far to the right in almost no time at all by forcing the mainstream to appeal to them.

I'm not sure we can say these rebel factions were ever outsiders, and I have no way of knowing whether they have moved their party toward their values or destroyed the party, as many liberals would believe.  Whatever Trump is, outsider or not, I suspect he's the result of the Republican party not living up to their promises, or that party promises are becoming increasingly meaningless to Republican voters.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 30, 2016, 11:22:48 PM
Voting third-party at local level, state level... okay, that's fine and personally I think great because they actually stand a chance to win. But until those third parties can even win at a state-level, expecting them to make any difference at a national level without playing within the rules and forcing the major players to come towards their ideology or risk fracturing the party and turning away independents (who win elections) is, if not immoral, moronic.

Third parties are not breaking any rules.  They may not meet your expectations, but they are not breaking any rules.

"Immoral and moronic" is great hyperbole to describe a strategy you disagree with, but as hyperbole, it's not truly an accurate description.  Third party voters are not generally morons, and they are immoral only to the extent that you pass judgment on them.  I might tend to be more amiable to your views without the moral/immoral implications, which sound mostly like appeals to emotion.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 30, 2016, 11:22:48 PM
And I say that as a Bernie supporter, with the caveat that I have always recognized him to be a one-trick pony type of politician. A very important one-trick, but a terrible president he would make nontheless. Bernie, Stein, all of them are more useful working to bring their fields of expertise and passion to a major party and using their independent appeal to force that party in their direction because that's just the way the system works.

Generally speaking the Democratic party works to discredit, exclude, and marginalize elements like Sanders or Stein, and to advance the political careers of conservative members and the status quo.  You call yourself a Bernie supporter, but you think he would be a terrible president?  I find this incomprehensible, much the way I relate to your moral/immoral argument. 

Fuck ethics. My "qualifier" is the candidate I least want to kick in the nuts. Since Clinton has no nuts (I think) she wins by default.

Quote from: stromboli on July 31, 2016, 11:08:23 AM
Fuck ethics. My "qualifier" is the candidate I least want to kick in the nuts.

That's the ticket!  Why fuss around with justifications?

Quote
Third parties are not breaking any rules.

Never said they broke rules, they simply just refused to play the game and thus cannot change the out-come of it.

QuoteYou call yourself a Bernie supporter, but you think he would be a terrible president?  I find this incomprehensible, much the way I relate to your moral/immoral argument.

Yes, I think he would make a terrible president because he is a one-trick pony. I do not think he could garner enough support from both parties to get even a 10th of his views across, and his inexperience and lack of addressing issues outside his core two or three means we have no idea what to expect or that he has the know-how to get it done.

I think he is much better serving how he has; at state and committee levels, where he can focus on the core issues that he is most passionate about.

“The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,” says Jason Brennan, a philosopher at Georgetown University and author of The Ethics of Voting. “If they’re smart, they’ll vote for the candidate likely to best produce the outcome they want. That might very well be compromising, but if voting for a far-left or far-right candidate means that you’re just going to lose the election, then you’ve brought the world further away from justice rather than closer to it.”

I think Trump is an example of the flaw in this argument. Few people thought Trump was a viable candidate when he threw his hat in the ring. If supporters hadn't believed in him and voted for him he wouldn't be one step away from becoming POTUS. Trump supporters believe he will be good for America, that by being outside the current system, utilizing his business acumen and putting Americans first he will create positive outcomes for US citizens. By the author's reasoning people who believed in Trump ideologically should have supported Cruz.

That said, I do agree that in some circumstances the candidate that is an ideological match might not be the candidate that produces the best outcomes. Jimmy Carter is a president I greatly admire as a person but as president he wasn't the best. I think of Sanders similarly.

QuoteJimmy Carter is a president I greatly admire as a person but as president he wasn't the best. I think of Sanders similarly.

That's who I was trying to think of... I would say that's a very good way I think of Sanders.

QuoteBy the author's reasoning people who believed in Trump ideologically should have supported Cruz.

Not sure I agree with this, since Trump was showing strong for a long time. The article I think is more a matter of when the odd's are 1/1000000000 of them winning rather than 1/5 or 1/10.

No third party has a chance of winning the election. If you want to vote for a third party and go with your heart, I will agree (probably, depending on which third party candidate you are voting for) that they are a much better candidate for president than Trump AND Hillary. But will that be an effective vote against Trump?

Hell.
Fucking.
No.

I will say this every time it needs to be said:
Our first priority is making sure Trump isn't elected in to office.  Priority number 2 is voting out the current members of the House and Senate and voting in better ones. NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING will get accomplished with even a good president in office. Even if Bernie Sanders was elected president, he would be fighting non-stop with the other 2/3 of the judicial system to get anything done. Almost none of it will. In order for anything to get done, we need to have the other 2/3 of this system work correctly and not like the current cluster-fuck of a system it is right now. We can't just pretend it away like trying to elect a new president will fix that. It wont. We need to vote in a new House and Senate for anything to get done, but right now, that is only priority number 2. Priority number one. Above anything else, is making sure that shit-lord of a man, Donald Trump is not elected president. I'm not happy the alternative is Hillary Clinton either, but you know what? It's better than having a fake nice person in office that doesn't currently publicly condone hate and a backwards agenda, than a person that openly endorses a backwards, hate-filled, racist, sexist agenda.

We cannot have Trump as president. Period.

It's your right to vote for whoever you want... even if it's a third party candidate... and it's even your right to not vote at all. It's not a duty or obligation. But do know that you are being lazily selfish and stubborn.

Let's not forget how important the Supreme Court is going to be these next elections; even if you think Hillary and Trump are one in the same, do you really think their nominations to the SC will be the same as well?

Quote... than a person that openly endorses a backwards, hate-filled, racist, sexist agenda.

Also this. If we let Trump win, it means we are okay with this type of mindset reaching the highest position in the land. It's bad enough he even stands a chance, but just think how emboldened these type of people will be if he wins?

We already have that Duke guy, the Grand-whatever KKK guy, running for office because he realised there are people who will vote for him. Letting Trump win is opening a flood gate for these types of assfucks.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 31, 2016, 03:37:32 PMYes, I think he would make a terrible president because he is a one-trick pony. I do not think he could garner enough support from both parties to get even a 10th of his views across, and his inexperience and lack of addressing issues outside his core two or three means we have no idea what to expect or that he has the know-how to get it done.

???!  He's been in office since the 80s and US senator for almost 10 years.  Anybody who's remotely familiar with the guy would know that, just like they would know that he has a pretty extensive platform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders) so the "lack of addressing issues outside his core two or three" is also absolute bullshit.

It's okay to rah-rah-rah for Clinton, but it's not okay to live in an alternate reality.

QuoteNo third party has a chance of winning the election. If you want to vote for a third party and go with your heart, I will agree (probably, depending on which third party candidate you are voting for) that they are a much better candidate for president than Trump AND Hillary. But will that be an effective vote against Trump?

Hell.
Fucking.
No.

That's not my priority.

QuoteOur first priority is making sure Trump isn't elected in to office.

No, thats YOUR first priority.

QuotePriority number 2 is voting out the current members of the House and Senate and voting in better ones.

That isn't ever going to happen. No matter what. And even if it did, we would just be in the same situation again a decade from now. Its not the people in office, its the system that allows them to keep getting elected without restriction. Changing that system is another thing that will never happen, because the people empowered to impose term limits are the same people who would have those limits imposed upon them. Asking a politician to give up power for no return is an exercise in naive futility.

QuoteEven if Bernie Sanders was elected president, he would be fighting non-stop with the other 2/3 of the judicial system to get anything done.

But he won't be actively trying to fuck us, which is more than I can say for either of the current candidates.

QuoteWe cannot have Trump as president. Period.

I agree. Unfortunately I feel the exact same way about Hillary.

QuoteIt's your right to vote for whoever you want... even if it's a third party candidate... and it's even your right to not vote at all. It's not a duty or obligation. But do know that you are being lazily selfish and stubborn.

Hah. I feel the same way about people who voted for Hillary in the primary. An obviously power hungry social and political chameleon, willing to do literally anything to override the will of the voters and ensure she wins no matter what. A woman with a questionable history as secretary of state. And yet people still voted for her. Why? I've never gotten a real answer as to why anyone would vote for her over Sanders except "well I think she has a better chance to beat Trump". Talk about selfish and stubborn. You picked the worse candidate just because you hate Trump and the people supporting him.

You don't get to cast a knee-jerk wrong headed vote for a terrible candidate then turn around once the primary is over and insist that we are selfish if we refuse to fall in line and compound your HORRIBLE decision. No fucking thanks.

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 31, 2016, 04:26:52 PM
???!  He's been in office since the 80s and US senator for almost 10 years.  Anybody who's remotely familiar with the guy would know that, just like they would know that he has a pretty extensive platform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders) so the "lack of addressing issues outside his core two or three" is also absolute bullshit.

It's okay to rah-rah-rah for Clinton, but it's not okay to live in an alternate reality.

Almost all of those are two or three core issues... financial reform, health-care and student debts, and social issues. Which is fine, but that did show that he doesn't have the experience of dealing with many other pressing issues in American society.

Like I said, I respect the things he has fought for and think he is best served doing those at the state/senate level. I just don't think his field of work is broad enough for the president, nor would he have the ability to convince the House and Senate to pass them... this is what I mean by experience. He is too "good" of guy to force people to get the shit he wants done.

QuoteAn obviously power hungry social and political chameleon, willing to do literally anything to override the will of the voters and ensure she wins no matter what. A woman with a questionable history as secretary of state. And yet people still voted for her. Why? I've never gotten a real answer as to why anyone would vote for her over Sanders except "well I think she has a better chance to beat Trump".

If we are going to quote Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

...I'm sorry, but Hillary Clinton's body of work for helping Americans is far and beyond anything Bernie has done.

Rankings on how liberal she was in the Senate... I'm sorry, but this idea that she is "basically a Republican", or "not liberal enough" is not based in reality but in buying all the shit she received in the media.

QuoteNational Journal's 2004 study of roll-call votes assigned Clinton a rating of 30 in the political spectrum, relative to the Senate at the time, with a rating of 1 being most liberal and 100 being most conservative.[448] National Journal's subsequent rankings placed her as the 32nd-most liberal senator in 2006 and 16th-most liberal senator in 2007.[449] A 2004 analysis by political scientists Joshua D. Clinton of Princeton University and Simon Jackman and Doug Rivers of Stanford University found her to be likely the sixth-to-eighth-most liberal senator.[450] The Almanac of American Politics, edited by Michael Barone and Richard E. Cohen, rated her votes from 2003 through 2006 as liberal or conservative, with 100 as the highest rating, in three areas: Economic, Social, and Foreign. Averaged for the four years, the ratings are: Economic = 75 liberal, 23 conservative; Social = 83 liberal, 6 conservative; Foreign = 66 liberal, 30 conservative. Total average = 75 liberal, 20 conservative.[nb 16] According to FiveThirtyEight's measure of political ideology, "Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate."[451]

QuoteBased on her stated positions from the 1990s to the present, On the Issues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Issues) places her in their "Left Liberal" region on their two-dimensional grid of social and economic ideologies, with a social score of 80 on a scale of 0 more-restrictive to 100 less-government stances and an economic score of 10 on a scale of 0 more-restrictive to 100 less-government stances.[452] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#cite_note-468) Crowdpac, which does a data aggregation of campaign contributions, votes, and speeches, gives her a 6.5L rating on a one-dimensional left-right scale from 10L (most liberal) to 10C (most conservative).[453] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#cite_note-469) Through 2008, she had an average lifetime 90 percent "Liberal Quotient" from Americans for Democratic Action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Democratic_Action),[454] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#cite_note-470) and a lifetime 8 percent rating from the American Conservative Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Conservative_Union).[455] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#cite_note-471)

What I see is people in this thread refusing to accept the fact that we realistically have 2 choices and that Trump is leading in polls.

If your first priority is not preventing a Trump presidency and you honestly think Hillary is as bad as Trump will be, then that's your deal then maybe your priorities are justifiably different than what they should be... although I can't understand why anyone that would be ok with letting trump become president. If you think that Hillary is even the slightest bit less malignant, you need to reevaluate your priorities.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 31, 2016, 03:37:32 PMYes, I think he would make a terrible president because he is a one-trick pony. I do not think he could garner enough support from both parties to get even a 10th of his views across, and his inexperience and lack of addressing issues outside his core two or three means we have no idea what to expect or that he has the know-how to get it done.

Dude. What?

Where did you hear that crap? He is very experienced, it there is anything that would make him a bad president it would be one thing, and it's not his lack of ability, if anything, it would be the house and senate's refusal to cooperate with him.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 31, 2016, 04:44:11 PM
Dude. What?

Where did you hear that crap? He is very experienced, it there is anything that would make him a bad president it would be one thing, and it's not his lack of ability, if anything, it would be the house and senate's refusal to cooperate with him.

Again, that's what I mean by lack of experience (in getting things done). He doesn't compromise which, like it or not, is what being a politician is about.

Sanders has plenty of experience, and just as importantly is honest and committed to the good of ordinary Americans. Imo he would've made a great president. An added bonus to a Sanders nomination would've been this: We wouldn't be having a worried conversation about the real possibility of a Trump presidency. All of the polls showed that he was a far stronger candidate vs Trump than Hillary is- partly because he's an outsider too, and partly because he isn't hated by half the country.

Would've, could've, should've. But isn't. Its Hillary against Trump, and although I agree that she's appalling, she isn't dangerous in the way that Trump is. And by dangerous, I mean a possible existential threat to American democracy and civil liberties.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 31, 2016, 04:55:50 PM
Again, that's what I mean by lack of experience (in getting things done). He doesn't compromise which, like it or not, is what being a politician is about.

Ah. OK yeah I can agree with that

Sent from your mom.

Yeah I worded that wrong... I didn't mean lack of experience as not having worked in that field. I shoulda said he doesn't have the greatest body of work in things he has accomplished (which he still has done alot of, just not enough of the mass getting things done a president has to).

Yeah. As of now, unfortunately. Politicians need to compromise their own morals a lot. One of the reasons the currrent senate and house will love both hillary cliton and donald duck.

This whole thread is a plea for others to vote the way some posters think they should vote.  I basically thought the same thing about the link from that Georgetown guy, although he was somewhat less preachy than what I'm hearing here.  I think those of us who don't agree with the issue being pushed, understand the points being made.  We understand the concerns, recognize the fears, and believe in the sincerity of those pushing for Hillary.  I wouldn't question those things for a minute.  But feel free to stop this morality bullshit anytime.  I think there are better arguments for supporting Hillary. 

Shit like this goes on during virtually every election.  In each election, it's always about why the current election is so especially important because so much is at stake.  There's the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, ideologies that are at stake that will be reversed or torn apart, the eminent doom of liberal values, and a Republican opponent who is the ultimate twit.  People get emotional about this stuff.  But sometimes the Republicans win the election no matter how much is at stake.  And we survive, and some good things still happen anyway.

Having said all that, I may vote for Hillary, but not because someone accuses me of being immoral in the voting booth.  There's lots of time left before then.  The nominations have only just been made, and hopefully we can hear some additional information from the candidates.  Although to be honest, I'm not expecting anything new and stunning that will change things much.  It's mostly just bullshit anyway.

Like I posted, she was ranked from 16th to 6-8th most liberal senator in her time... that seems a rather good reason to vote for her.

Quote from: Duncle on July 31, 2016, 04:58:37 PMSanders has plenty of experience, and just as importantly is honest and committed to the good of ordinary Americans. Imo he would've made a great president. An added bonus to a Sanders nomination would've been this: We wouldn't be having a worried conversation about the real possibility of a Trump presidency. All of the polls showed that he was a far stronger candidate vs Trump than Hillary is- partly because he's an outsider too, and partly because he isn't hated by half the country.

Would've, could've, should've. But isn't. Its Hillary against Trump, and although I agree that she's appalling, she isn't dangerous in the way that Trump is. And by dangerous, I mean a possible existential threat to American democracy and civil liberties.

Which is why I'm voting for Hillary, mostly out of desperation.  It's a real shame that it's come to this.

Quote from: Shiranu on July 31, 2016, 04:34:56 PM
If we are going to quote Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

...I'm sorry, but Hillary Clinton's body of work for helping Americans is far and beyond anything Bernie has done.

If by Americans, you mean members of the Clinton coterie.  But I agree that while Bernie was a sweetheart candidate, he wasn't the cutest girl at the dance.  Trump is like the HS quarterback you love to hate ... bragging brawny idiot.

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 31, 2016, 07:28:09 PM
Which is why I'm voting for Hillary, mostly out of desperation.  It's a real shame that it's come to this.

It was supposed to be Hillary against JEB, with the Republithugs fixing the vote in Florida and Ohio.  But something went Wong ... y'all are discounting foreign influence in our elections, particularly the Saudis and the Chinese.  I think the Chinese can get behind Trump but not Hillary and not JEB.  George W wanted originally to go to war against China ... but the CIA intervened with their favored patsy.  The Saudis love Hillary and hate Trump.  Expect to see another Sirhan Sirhan if Trump gets plugged.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 29, 2016, 09:05:44 PM
So basically, your tl;dr is that because it's not obligatory and instead a right, it also means you have the right to be lazy and selfish.

And you're right, you do have the right to be selfish. But just know that is what you are being.

Let me point out that I have never liked the "throwing your vote away" nonsense which has kept us locked in a broken two terrible party system for decades and, to me, this is just more of the same.  So accordingly, I do no think it "selfish" to exercise my right to vote for whomever the hell I choose, even if they don't have a chance in hell of winning.  As I said, the winning of an election is not the end-all, only result of the election.  Bernie just lost an "election" for candidate for the real election, but he still had an impact and every vote he got even when it was obvious he was not going to win added to the power of the message which was being delivered.  Simply running was enough to change the way people think.  Of course that's not entirely the same is it was an "election" between only two people and for most either was "acceptable".

But to call me selfish for voting for a candidate in whom I believe even though that candidate has little chance of winning, that's just ridiculous.  To say it is "immoral" for me to vote for the candidate I really want in office, that's just fucking retarded.  It's the whole "throwing your vote away" bullshit I first heard in the '90s and it's thinking like that which all but ensures we have decades yet to come of the devil or his brother in most major offices.

So let me give you an example that might help you see my point a little better.  Let's say something totally fucked up happens before November's election.  Let's say Trump somehow loses the nomination and Cruz becomes the Republican nominee.  Butthurt, Trump now decides to run as a third party candidate.  Cruz has the hard right, Trump has some of the right and much of the middle and Hillary has the hard left and some of the middle.  But then the unthinkable happens.  It's the day before the election and the polls are in.  Hillary only a week ago did something so incredibly stupid that it's unforgivable.  She ate a hot dog in New York from the wrong street vendor, something really, really bad, and the public is outraged.  She is down in all the polls by double digits.  It is obvious she has no chance.  The difference between Trump and Cruz is razor thin.  So, do you vote for Trump or Cruz?  If you believe you are morally obligated in these circumstances to vote for either of those assholes, I'm sorry, but that's stupid.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 31, 2016, 04:06:13 PM
No third party has a chance of winning the election.

Well, not with that attitude!

So can you explain to us how refusal to help make an effective vote against Trump is not selfish?

This is America. You have the right to be selfish if you want, but at least be self-aware.

Sent from your mom.

Quote from: Duncle on July 31, 2016, 04:58:37 PM
Would've, could've, should've. But isn't. Its Hillary against Trump, and although I agree that she's appalling, she isn't dangerous in the way that Trump is. And by dangerous, I mean a possible existential threat to American democracy and civil liberties.

Obama has been just as bad as Bush, and maybe worse, when it comes to the loss of civil liberties, and Hillary will be no different. Have you been living under a rock?

I don't think it's fair to call someone immoral or selfish for refusing to vote for one of the main parties. Maybe that person thinks by helping build up a third party, things will turn out better in the long run, so calling that person immoral or selfish doesn't make sense. Go ahead and call them a dreamer who needs to come back to reality, but don't call them immoral. You won't get any liberals on the SC with Hillary in there. Hillary is anti-liberal and she, just like Pence, will nominate people who are anti-civil liberties. I don't think Pence is more likely than Hillary to start WW3. They are both bad news for the world. Does it make someone immoral if they refuse to vote in a warmonger and give up the fight against neo-conservatism? If you can't beat em, join em I guess, right? I don't see how voting for an anti-war candidate can be thought of as more immoral than giving your stamp of approval to someone who you know for certain is going to kill many, many people all around the world.

I don't think it's immoral for people to refuse to give up fighting against the war on drugs, rather than giving it your stamp of approval, or refusing to give up the fight against for-profit prisons, rather than voting for someone who takes money from them. How are things ever going to change if you give up fighting for that change?

Is Clinton a better choice than Pence/ Trump? Sure. Is marriage equality in trouble? No. The Republicans have jumped on the gay bandwagon and they're not going back now. Does Clinton have a better position when it comes to, for instance, women's health? Yes, she is better there. So, if you want to say that one is making a stupid choice by refusing to suck it up and vote for Clinton, then fair enough. That's a decent argument. I'll give you that. Calling them immoral or selfish is going too far though, and I don't think it is accurate.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on August 02, 2016, 04:37:38 PM
Is marriage equality in trouble? No. The Republicans have jumped on the gay bandwagon and they're not going back now.

Republicans have not jumped on the gay bandwagon. From the official 2016 Republican Party Platform:

"It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman. ... For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states."

I agree that voting for an unviable candidate base on ideology is not an immoral act. People don't vote for unviable candidates because they intend harm but to eventually produce good outcomes. Also no one can predict the outcomes of a presidency therefore one can't say that a particular candidate will definitely produce bad outcomes for the country. For example, many people expected disaster when Obama was elected but by several objective measures the country is in better shape now than when he took office. Similarly, if Trump is elected disaster is not guaranteed. Even if it was a disaster, a Trump presidency might result in a political backlash that eventually creates positive outcomes, such as changing how elections are run.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 02, 2016, 01:01:37 PM
So can you explain to us how refusal to help make an effective vote against Trump is not selfish?

This is America. You have the right to be selfish if you want, but at least be self-aware.

Sent from your mom.

Yeah fuck that inane logic.

Do you buy American made goods? Is your car American made? If not, has anyone accused you of being selfish? After all buying American made goods supports the American economy.

But no, of course nobody accuses you of being selfish. You bought the best car for the best price. Simple as that. If Ford or GMC wanted your sale they should have offered a better car or a better price or both.

To sum it up, its not your job to buy American cars, its an American car manufacturer's job to offer a product you'll buy. If they don't, and you buy foreign, nobody jumps in and accuses you of being selfish.

Yes, it IS the exact same situation with candidates and voting. Hillary Clinton failed to convince me to vote for her. I don't owe her or you my vote. She has to earn it. So far, she has failed to do so. If she can't manage to convince me to vote for her by election day, I won't be voting her. Not voting for her is not selfish. My only function and obligation is to cast a vote for the candidate that I feel is most worthy to lead this country. If my decision doesn't fit with your desires, well isn't that just too fucking bad?

Don't make me laugh/puke with this disingenuous insinuation that a Trump presidency will somehow be my fault or the fault of other people who decide not to vote for her. If she loses its HER fault. If she loses, she sold the inferior product in the voting marketplace. If she loses, it will be because people, by and large, did not want her as president.

I do buy some foreign goods. And yeah, it does make me a bit selfish for looking after my own wallet and convienency sometimes.

But at least I'm self aware. ;)

QuoteDo you buy American made goods? Is your car American made? If not, has anyone accused you of being selfish? After all buying American made goods supports the American economy.

Helping the American economy and voting in a racist, homophobic, xenophobic enabler of even worse people are not quite apples to apples.

QuoteYes, it IS the exact same situation with candidates and voting. Hillary Clinton failed to convince me to vote for her.

Except it's really not. You are not buying a car for yourself, rather everyone... but instead of saying, "Meh, I'll buy the one that at least works!" you say, "Well,  I'll just leave it up to the group and hope they don't pick the van that has spiked seats, flesh-eating seat belts, airbags full of nails and is missing two wheels! Yay, self-righteousness!".

QuoteMy only function and obligation is to cast a vote for the candidate that I feel is most worthy to lead this country.

Why ever vote, then? Just write in "Jesus" or "Ghandi" or whoever you feel is TRULY fit to lead, not just some third-party loony who is a bit closer to your ideals. Why not just vote yourself in? Statistically they are all as likely to actually win.

If you vote third party, you aren't voting. And that's fine, just don't try to act like you are somehow morally superiour for "sticking to your guns". You are just wasting everyone's time when you could be at home watching a good series or mowing the lawn or literally anything else that is more productive. At least the people who refuse to vote have some integrity.

I'm not sure what else there is to explain. Nothing is going to change for the better with a new president. A president like Trump will be can certainly wound this country, but change for the better

will

not

happen

until we vote in a new house and senate. Vote for whoever you want, but you're ignoring reality by thinking voting for anyone but an effective vote against Trump is helping this country, unless you actually think Trump becoming president will help this country, which is another issue all together.

Not sure there are any other ways of wording it and I'm note sure what there's left to say anyway.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 02, 2016, 05:17:22 PM
Republicans have not jumped on the gay bandwagon. From the official 2016 Republican Party Platform:

"It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman. ... For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states."

Thanks for the correction. Yeah, they do not out and out support marriage equality, but they do not rail against it anymore either, unless they are specifically asked about it. You're right though. The platform says that it should be up to the individual States. In the past couple of years, instead of railing against gay marriage and making it one of their main talking points, we've instead heard things like "We need to concede that public opinion on the issue is shifting." 61 % of millenial Republicans support marriage equality. The Republicans are not entirely stupid. I think they see that this is a losing issue for them, but it's still a part of the platform because they don't want the bigots to stay home on voting day. I don't think anything would actually happen to marriage equality under a Trump/ Pence Presidency.

.Repubs are far more interested in ending legal abortion, while y'all are distracted by the gay issue.

Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2016, 07:22:58 PM
.Repubs are far more interested in ending legal abortion, while y'all are distracted by the gay issue.

I agree completely. I think the far right doesn't like the gays, the traditional conservatives are coming around, but a sizable percentage of the population is very concerned about abortion because they honestly believe babies are being murdered.

Electing Trump would accomplish one very positive thing: lazy voters on the left might be a bit less lazy next time.

I think part of what happened to Bernie is that many of his supporters were so confident he'd win the primaries that they didn't feel the need to attend personally. If Trump gets elected, I think it will be due to a similar issue on Hillary's side. Trump's supporters aren't voting for the lesser of two evils, whereas many of Hillary's "supporters" feel they are. It's a lot harder to get enthusiastic when you don't really like your candidate.

I'm interested to find out how many people vote in November.

Quote from: Shiranu on August 02, 2016, 06:26:56 PM
Helping the American economy and voting in a racist, homophobic, xenophobic enabler of even worse people are not quite apples to apples.

As long as you utterly disregard the point I was trying to make, you're absolutely right! :D

Quote from: Shiranu on August 02, 2016, 06:26:56 PMExcept it's really not. You are not buying a car for yourself, rather everyone... but instead of saying, "Meh, I'll buy the one that at least works!" you say, "Well,  I'll just leave it up to the group and hope they don't pick the van that has spiked seats, flesh-eating seat belts, airbags full of nails and is missing two wheels! Yay, self-righteousness!".

No, I'm buying a car for myself. I am also voting for myself. I'm running out of ways to say that I don't owe you or anyone else my vote, rather that it has to be earned. It just doesn't seem to be sinking in at all. I can only assume that if you actually tackle that subject you are worried you might slip into a discussion about how dismal a candidate Hillary is and you've got your eye on the prize for maintaining that illusion you have regarding her adequacy.

Quote from: Shiranu on August 02, 2016, 06:26:56 PMWhy ever vote, then? Just write in "Jesus" or "Ghandi" or whoever you feel is TRULY fit to lead, not just some third-party loony who is a bit closer to your ideals. Why not just vote yourself in? Statistically they are all as likely to actually win.

If you vote third party, you aren't voting. And that's fine, just don't try to act like you are somehow morally superiour for "sticking to your guns". You are just wasting everyone's time when you could be at home watching a good series or mowing the lawn or literally anything else that is more productive. At least the people who refuse to vote have some integrity.

Oh EL OH FUCKING EL getting lectured to about integrity by a Hillary supporter. As far as I'm concerned its chumps like you that got us into this impossible position by making her the nominee. Not because you like her, or because shes the best candidate. But just because someone convinced you that she has a better chance of defeating the antichrist Trump in the general.

Stick around Shiranu. Hang out here. Be sure to keep logging in for at least 2 more years. We can have some nice long discussions about personal voting responsibility against the backdrop of a dead center/mildly right President Hillary who caters to special interests and doesn't do one fucking thing for your precious social issues.

QuoteNo, I'm buying a car for myself. I am also voting for myself.

If the president didn't make decisions that affect anyone other than you, sure.

QuoteOh EL OH FUCKING EL getting lectured to about integrity by a Hillary supporter. As far as I'm concerned its chumps like you that got us into this impossible position by making her the nominee. Not because you like her, or because shes the best candidate. But just because someone convinced you that she has a better chance of defeating the antichrist Trump in the general.

I voted for Sanders in my primaries and attended Sanders rallies, but I suppose that helped Hillary win.


The primaries are for "ethics" and voting your heart, the election proper is voting who will be more aligned to your interest. And you can "vote" for Stein, Micky Mouse or Jesus but those are all less productive options than just staying home and saying, "Yeah, I didn't vote."


And again, if you really think Trump and Hillary are exactly the same, you have been fed a load of bullshit. Shit, let's forget those two... do you really think the Supreme Court justices they nominate will be "more or less" the same? Do you think the cultures they will inspire will be "more or less" the same?

Quote from: widdershins on August 02, 2016, 01:01:09 PMWell, not with that attitude!

Pickelled Eggs is correct when he says that no third party has a chance of winning the election.  (Or any POTUS election in the foreseeable future, for that matter)  And it has nothing to do with attitude.  The way elections in the US are structured hurts third parties and practically guarantees a two-party system.  For any third parties to be viable, there'd have to be structural changes in our electoral system first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Quote from: Nonsensei on August 02, 2016, 11:43:48 PM
But just because someone convinced you that she has a better chance of defeating the antichrist Trump in the general.

Uhh. Well she is the only other major party candidate. "convincing" isn't the term that I would use to say what you're trying to say. I would say "observe". As in we observed the reality that we are in. lol


And on that note, if you can't calm yourself, I'd advise you take a breather. I mean.... you're spelling out the letters in lol as "el oh el".... in all caps. It's pretty obvious you're giving us emotional responses and not thought out, rational ones.

Anyway. #trump2016 #buildawall #chinachinachinachina #yourefired #unemployment2016 #makeamericahateagain2016

I gotta start prepping myself to worship our inevitable pumpkinfaced overlord.

Let's say "China"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 02, 2016, 01:01:37 PM
So can you explain to us how refusal to help make an effective vote against Trump is not selfish?

This is America. You have the right to be selfish if you want, but at least be self-aware.

Sent from your mom.

Yes I can explain that to you.  You won't like it, but I can explain it pretty well, I think.

When you go to the ballot box, do you think you're going to see a "Never Trump" box to check?  I can tell you, you are not.  The purpose of voting is to vote "for" someone.  That is the actual definition of voting.  This whole "make an effective vote against Trump" thing, that's YOUR goal.  You are playing the short game.  You have rolled over and accepted the broken system the way it is and decided to play by the rigged rules you have been handed.  MY goal is not to compromise my principles for short-term gratification.  If Trump is elected, that will suck...for me.  And a bit for my children.  But my grandchildren?  Great-grandchildren?  They won't know who he was.  I can pass on to them the defeatist attitude that the system is rigged and here's how you play or I can stick to my principles and hope that, long-term, there are enough of us left who haven't given up to eventually make a difference.  That will suck for me, and a little for my children.  But if it eventually works, my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will enjoy a more fair system.

Now, do you see what happens there?  Either way my "selfish" act sucks for ME, but is better for those who will come after me if the system is eventually changed because there were enough people like me who wouldn't play a rigged game that it eventually made a difference.  I get nothing out of this.  Do you?  You sure do!  You get short-term gratification.  "Yay!  We beat Trump and MY life is better for it!  I hope my great-grandchildren are as good at getting less fucked by the system as I am!"

I am idealistic, not "selfish".  And no, I am not making a difference, personally, but the same argument could be and has been made for the importance of one vote.  If one vote matters, so does one voice (so send your money now because money is speech!).  What you are saying is that my one VOTE matters, but my one VOICE does not.  Well, that's your opinion.  It's your opinion that it is more important to vote against Trump than it is to vote for someone I actually believe in because you've been suckered into thinking that this is the way the game is played.  And it is, but only because so many people like you accept it.  Tell me, if NOBODY thought like you, if NOBODY went to the polls to vote "against" someone, what do you think the chances of a third party candidate getting elected would be then?  I bet they would be quite a bit higher.  So what is it I am doing that is so selfish?  I'm refusing to play by the corrupt rules.  I'm refusing to accept the system as-is.  I'm refusing to accept the two terrible parties which have been taking turns forcibly butt sexing us my entire life.  But most importantly to you, I'm refusing to give YOU my vote.  Because THAT is what you're actually asking of me.  You are telling my that I am selfish because I won't give YOU my vote.  I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call indoctrinated bullshit on that one.  You drank the Kool-Aid of political corruption and have accepted that there is no possibility of a better way where we, the people, actually have a voice.  I don't like that flavor, so I am going to continue to be "selfish" by routinely making my own life suck so that people I will not live to meet MIGHT have it better.

Voting is not only about the vote.  It's also your voice.  Bernie lost the primary.  The votes for him are dead and buried.  But the VOICE they left behind is still loud and strong.  Long after the vote no longer matters the voice can linger.  It is shortsighted to see only the vote and ignore the voice.  Right now people who think like you are in the vast majority, so your voices are drowning out people like me.  But eventually, if there are enough people like me who believe your VOICE matters at least as much as you vote (in some cases more), the system will change and the two parties will live to regret their decades of abuse of the system and the people.

So selfish?  Hardly.  Do you think I WANT Trump as a president?  Do you think I WANTED Joni Ernst?  It SUCKS for people who don't play by the shit rules most have come to accept.  We rarely get the instant gratification and short-term triumph of a win.  But I'm not voting to get what "I" want, and I'm sure as fuck not asking YOU to vote to get what "I" want.  I am diminishing the importance of my vote in exchange for a voice, saying "I do not accept this rigged system and I want something better", knowing full well I am unlikely to get it in my lifetime.  I am giving up what I actually COULD get to fight a, currently, losing battle for the future.  I am choosing to stick to my ideals because I would rather hope for a better system, a better future, than accept what I, personally, MIGHT be able to get right now.  It's not selfish, it's sacrifice.  What would be selfish is if I told you that you were somehow defective for not giving me your vote.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 03, 2016, 12:18:31 AM
Pickelled Eggs is correct when he says that no third party has a chance of winning the election.  (Or any POTUS election in the foreseeable future, for that matter)  And it has nothing to do with attitude.  The way elections in the US are structured hurts third parties and practically guarantees a two-party system.  For any third parties to be viable, there'd have to be structural changes in our electoral system first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

If NOBODY went to the polls with the idea, "no third party has a chance of winning the election", that would not be the case.  Part of the problem, my friend.

*sigh*

Quote from: widdershins on August 03, 2016, 11:14:35 AM
If NOBODY went to the polls with the idea, "no third party has a chance of winning the election", that would not be the case.  Part of the problem, my friend.

You and nonsensei have a lot of "if" in your logic. Making your intentions calculated on "if"s that will not happen.

When was the last time an independent won a general election? I'll make it easier for you.... When was the last time an independent did well during an election?

Oh. Right. Nader. When the votes got split, because even with the amount of votes he received, he could not compete against an almost completely unified Republican party. Which is what will happen this year. I don't know what independent you are picking, but that is also the other issue. Which one? The people that are still voting for independents are so diverse with their choice that it will. not. happen. they will. not. win. They will split the vote from the lesser evil that is Hillary.

I will say this every time it needs to be said:
An independent candidate will not win. There isn't a chance because of how the people voting for independents are going to be voting for different independents. An independent victory will not happen. You will be throwing your vote away... for what? to make a point?
Our first priority is making sure Trump isn't elected in to office.  Priority number 2 is voting out the current members of the House and Senate and voting in better ones. NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING will get accomplished with even a good president in office. Even if Bernie Sanders was elected president, he would be fighting non-stop with the other 2/3 of the judicial system to get anything done. Almost none of it will. In order for anything to get done, we need to have the other 2/3 of this system work correctly and not like the current cluster-fuck of a system it is right now. We can't just pretend it away like trying to elect a new president will fix that. It wont. We need to vote in a new House and Senate for anything to get done, but right now, that is only priority number 2. Priority number one. Above anything else, is making sure that shit-lord of a man, Donald Trump is not elected president. I'm not happy the alternative is Hillary Clinton either, but you know what? It's better than having a fake nice person in office that doesn't currently publicly condone hate and a backwards agenda, than a person that openly endorses a backwards, hate-filled, racist, sexist agenda.

We cannot have Trump as president. Period.

It's your right to vote for whoever you want... even if it's a third party candidate... and it's even your right to not vote at all. It's not a duty or obligation. But do know that you are being lazily selfish and stubborn.

#trump2016

Get ready.

Btw. Voting for Hillary because we acknowledge that she is 1: a much better option than Trump and 2: has a better chance at beating Trump is not "rolling over and accepting the broken system". It's assessing the situation rationally.

Vote out senators. Vote out the House. Nothing significant in our system will change until then. Nothing.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 12:59:49 PM1: a much better option than Trump

It's still like saying that passing diarrhea is better than vomiting. Both are unpleasant, but given the option most folks would pick the one you don't have to taste.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on August 03, 2016, 01:03:47 PM
It's still like saying that passing diarrhea is better than vomiting. Both are unpleasant, but given the option most folks would pick the one you don't have to taste.

lol yes. Exactly.

I guess a small few people are bulimic, though.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 12:43:05 PM
You and nonsensei have a lot of "if" in your logic. Making your intentions calculated on "if"s that will not happen.

My intentions are not calculated on any "ifs".  My intentions are to have a voice in our government.  Do I actually believe the third party candidate will win?  Of course not.  There are too many people who think like you.  Do I think you're all going to suddenly become more idealistic and give that third party candidate a chance?  Of course not.  The "if" is not part of some master plan, it's simply pointing out what I see as the flaw in yours.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 12:43:05 PM
When was the last time an independent won a general election? I'll make it easier for you.... When was the last time an independent did well during an election?

You miss the point entirely.  It's not about winning the election.  It's about rejecting the corrupt system in the hopes that enough people will eventually do the same to make a difference.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 12:43:05 PM
Oh. Right. Nader. When the votes got split, because even with the amount of votes he received, he could not compete against an almost completely unified Republican party. Which is what will happen this year. I don't know what independent you are picking, but that is also the other issue. Which one? The people that are still voting for independents are so diverse with their choice that it will. not. happen. they will. not. win. They will split the vote from the lesser evil that is Hillary.

I actually never said I was picking any independent.  I did not indicate at all for whom I might vote in this particular election.  I'm not even talking specifically about "this election".  I am rejecting your basic premise that I have to vote for an asshole to make sure a dick doesn't get elected.

I suppose I will decide that when I find out who's running.  I know, it's very selfish and stupid of me to find out who's actually going to be on the ballot before deciding who I will vote for.  I guess I will just never learn that having all the information before coming to a conclusion only makes you stupid and selfish.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 12:43:05 PM
I will say this every time it needs to be said:
An independent candidate will not win. There isn't a chance because of how the people voting for independents are going to be voting for different independents. An independent victory will not happen. You will be throwing your vote away... for what? to make a point?

Again, you miss the point entirely because all you can see is the short term, this election, what I want NOW and for ME.  It's not about winning.  It's not about making a point.  It's about not accepting the corrupt system as it is.  It's about not rolling over and becoming part of the problem.  Because I think we ALL agree the system is fucked.

Do you think Rosa Parks was the first black person to refuse to give up her seat to a white person?  Because she wasn't.  (No, I am not saying what I am doing is even REMOTELY comparable to a rights icon like Parks, before I start taking that shit).  Parks is the one who started the movement, but she's not the one who started the protests.  One voice can matter, but dozens, hundreds, thousands, even millions of voices go unheard first.

If I were to vote for a third party candidate, I would not do it believing I had a chance to elect that person.  I would not do it to "make a point", which you only say because it sounds stupid.  I would do it because I truly believe that candidate is the best choice and I refuse to bow to a system where I have to choose between two pieces of shit for lunch when there's a sandwich right fucking there.  "But the fat guy isn't going to let you have the sandwich, so you HAVE TO choose which piece of shit you're going to eat!"  No, I fucking don't.  I'm not "making a point", I'm refusing to compromise my principles and play the rigged game.  That is not "throwing my vote away".  Yes, my vote is "wasted", if you want to look at it that way, but if enough of us do that, if enough voices speak loudly enough, eventually one of them might be heard.  If avid Bernie supporters write in Bernie (which I will not be doing because even I think that would be stupid) in large enough numbers to make a real difference in the election (I'm talking costing Hillary the election by a landslide), those votes won't get Bernie elected, but those voices WILL be heard.  Maybe it will lead to change, maybe it won't, but no doubt it would have ramifications outside of simply "the vote", which is all you are focusing on.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 12:43:05 PM
Our first priority is making sure Trump isn't elected in to office.

YOUR first priority is making sure Trump isn't elected and THAT is what is truly "selfish", when you project YOUR priority onto me and say that I am defective if that is not also my priority.  Seriously, you can't see the fundamentalism in that?

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 12:43:05 PM
Priority number 2 is voting out the current members of the House and Senate and voting in better ones. NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING will get accomplished with even a good president in office. Even if Bernie Sanders was elected president, he would be fighting non-stop with the other 2/3 of the judicial system to get anything done. Almost none of it will. In order for anything to get done, we need to have the other 2/3 of this system work correctly and not like the current cluster-fuck of a system it is right now. We can't just pretend it away like trying to elect a new president will fix that. It wont. We need to vote in a new House and Senate for anything to get done, but right now, that is only priority number 2. Priority number one. Above anything else, is making sure that shit-lord of a man, Donald Trump is not elected president. I'm not happy the alternative is Hillary Clinton either, but you know what? It's better than having a fake nice person in office that doesn't currently publicly condone hate and a backwards agenda, than a person that openly endorses a backwards, hate-filled, racist, sexist agenda.

We cannot have Trump as president. Period.

I certainly can't disagree with most of that.  I would love to see Obama withdraw his Supreme Court nomination the day after Hillary wins the election to make room for her to nominate the most uncompromising, liberal prick she can find and give those little pricks no alternative but to take it and like it.  I would laugh.  I would laugh a lot.  But all of that is short term.  I can't change the system at all, much less in my own lifetime.  I can only hope that the future will be better, with a more fair system and the money out of politics.  You know a lot of politicians who say that, but how many of those who actually have a chance of being elected will DO it?  Nobody ever changed anything by giving up and accepting the way things are.  So if I want real change the ONLY thing I can do is not give in to the "throwing your vote away" crowd and accept things the way they are.  I am very unlikely to personally make a difference with what I'm doing, but it's impossible for me to make a difference if I do nothing.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 12:43:05 PM
It's your right to vote for whoever you want... even if it's a third party candidate... and it's even your right to not vote at all. It's not a duty or obligation. But do know that you are being lazily selfish and stubborn.

And again, you miss the point throwing your selfish little "Do it my way or you're an asshole" tantrum.  Stubborn?  Because I won't give up and agree with you I'm stubborn?  Because I won't roll over and accept the system as-is I'm stubborn?  Because I disagree with you I'm stubborn?  And lazy, now?  You're the one who has rolled over and accepted how things are.  Making a stand is lazy, is it?  Waiting for all the information to come in, carefully examining that information AND THEN making an informed decision is lazy?  My months of upcoming learning and consideration is lazy compared to your "Well, Hillary got the nomination 2 minutes ago, so I know who I'm voting for"?  And we're back to selfish.  You're the one who's demanding that I vote the way YOU want, not the other way around.  You are the one calling me stubborn, selfish, lazy and, in not so many words, stupid because my opinion differs from yours.

And why, oh why, would your arguments not convince me?  Let's take a quick look.  What happened here?  Well, first of all, a claim was made.  But that claim is a little strange.  The claim was essentially "People who disagree with me are bad".  Really?  A part of the claim was actually to frame people who disagree with the claim negatively.  You see, that's how you know you've got a good, solid argument based in fact; that only bad people disagree with you.  So, what happened next?  Well, I started off selfish.  Then I obviously got stupid.  And somehow I also ended up lazy and stubborn.  I can't help but notice I was never "brave" or "true to my nature".  I was only ever bad things.  The longer I disagreed with you, the more bad things I became.  And, of course, if Trump wins it's my fault, personally.  I will apparently cast the deciding vote.  Forget that I never actually told you who I would be voting for and, more likely than not, it will be Hillary as I don't actually hate her.  I don't love her or anything, but most of the shit about her is actually of the "bull" variety.  But I AM waiting to see who's actually on the fucking ballot before definitively making up my mind.

So, you do realize you're a fundie, right?  Yeah, I'm an idealist and idealism is pretty much the polar opposite of realism.  I'll take the hit for that.  I want the system to change and I can tell you, either nothing happens, the system changes or the system changes you.  You DO NOT get to change the system by changing for the system.  Long term, decades from now, that's where my goal is.  But you, you only care about "right now" and if "right now" isn't the only thing that's important to me that shows some flaw in me, right?  Noting to do with a difference of opinion, nothing to do with what we hold as important individually, I'm either with your or I'm stupid, lazy, selfish and stubborn.  Okay.  So, I just have one question.  Can I call you Randy?

You're throwing marshmallows at a wall, hoping to demolish it.

Sent from your mom.

To clarify, you're stubborn because you think that voting for your third party candidate to "reject the system"  is going to do anything. You seem to think that even though Donald Trump is bad and much worse than Hillary, the fact that Hillary Clinton is still pretty bad and that is enough reason to bury your head in the sand.

Hate to break it to you, but the fundie is you.

Sent from your mom.

QuoteI actually never said I was picking any independent.  I did not indicate at all for whom I might vote in this particular election.  I'm not even talking specifically about "this election".  I am rejecting your basic premise that I have to vote for an asshole to make sure a dick doesn't get elected.

What are you even arguing about, then @widdershins . I can't have a discussion with someone that doesn't even have an idea of what they're talking about, moving from position to position.


Be clear with what you'r point is.

Is your reason for voting for an independent/not voting at all because you actually think the independent can win? or because you want to make a point?

If it's because you think they can win, I ask you to reevaluate the situation. If it's to make a point, I ask you to swallow your pride and reevaluate the situation.

If you want to change and reject the system, it's done by voting out the people in the house and the senate first. Unfortunately, we have this presidential election to deal with first.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 03:55:10 PM
What are you even arguing about, then @widdershins . I can't have a discussion with someone that doesn't even have an idea of what they're talking about, moving from position to position.


Be clear with what you'r point is.

Is your reason for voting for an independent/not voting at all because you actually think the independent can win? or because you want to make a point?

If it's because you think they can win, I ask you to reevaluate the situation. If it's to make a point, I ask you to swallow your pride and reevaluate the situation.

If you want to change and reject the system, it's done by voting out the people in the house and the senate first. Unfortunately, we have this presidential election to deal with first.

My point is unchanged from the beginning, and it was never about "this election" specifically, it is a rejection of the "throwing your vote away" mentality, which I have said REPEATEDLY, starting with the second paragraph of my first post and repeated at least once or twice since.  Your inability to see my point has more to do with your fundamentalist rejection of that point than me changing anything.  Nothing has changed in all of my posts.  SHOW ME where I "moved from position to position".  I may get off the original topic from time to time as I respond to specific allegations, but my point has never changed.

So, I'm the fundamentalist then?  Okay.  You respond how?  You make a ridiculous analogy to further show why my position is bad in the first post.

In the second you again misrepresent what I am saying.  I actually never said Hillary was bad in any way.  At no point did I in any way insinuate that Hillary, personally, was bad.  In fact, in my last post I specifically stated that I kind of liked her and would likely be voting for her.  Once you told me what I think, then you said what I "seem to think", and what I seem to think is that Hillary is pretty bad.  So why, then, am I likely voting for her?  And finally in that post you throw my accusation back at me.  Yeah, that's some pretty rational responding right there.  Nothing at all like a fundie throwing a tantrum.

In your third post (I rate so many) you say I have no idea what I'm talking about (I'm stupid again), then add that I'm moving from position to position, a brand new "bad thing" I am.  Then I'm not clear, another brand new bad thing I am.  Then there's a false dichotomy.  The reason for voting for a third party is the reason I have given repeatedly, which is neither of those.  I'm not going to give it yet again.  You don't want to understand my point anyway.  Followed by another false dichotomy telling me what I think because it's easier than understanding a point of view you strongly disagree with.  And finally you tell me "how it is".

I will say it ONCE more, and that is it.  I will make it clear.

THE POINT I AM MAKING: What I take issue with is the "throwing your vote away" and "you are selfish if you don't do it my way" mentality.  They are one and the same and this mentality is why a third party candidate stands no chance.

MY PROBLEM WITH HILLARY: I have no problem with Hillary and she is who I will LIKELY vote for, though I believe it to be mildly retarded to make a definitive decision before I even know all the names which are going to be on the ballot.  I don't reject Hillary, nor do I think she is anywhere near as bad as Trump, nor do I think she's "still pretty bad", nor do I dislike her strongly, nor any of the other things you've made up for me, not one of which relates in the most remote way to anything I actually said ANYWHERE in ANY thread, threads like the one where I got torn a new asshole multiple times for DEFENDING her.

WHAT I HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH: To trade my one vote, which is greatly diminished in our current system anyway, for one voice, which is the only REAL way things are going to change.  Why?  Because when you match your one vote with the ten thousand fucking morons out there what does your vote really do?  People like you will keep spouting what I believe to be utter bullshit and part of the problem, the "throwing your vote away" nonsense, and I will continue calling it bullshit with what you see as nonsense from me.

HOW I SEE YOUR SIDE: I see you as looking only short, term, at each individual election, instead of actually working toward long-term change.  You say that the way to get this change is to do it your way.  How is that working out for you?  Dodd-Frank was passed...and then gutted.  There was too much money in politics...so money became speech, and we can't get enough speech in politics.  A handful of banks pulled a job on US and got away with it.  After 40 years we are STILL fighting the abortion fight.  After 50 years we are STILL fighting the civil rights fight.

WHAT I BELIEVE DOES NOT HELP: One election at a time doesn't do shit, big picture.  Let's say we get Hillary in the presidency AND we get a bunch of Democrats in office besides.  Will we get universal health care?  Will bankers be held accountable?  Will Citizens United get reversed?  Will Bush Jr. get charged, or even fucking investigated?  Will Pope Benedict's immunity get rescinded?  Will ANY of that happen?  What is this big fucking change I am supposed to expect if we JUST get Hillary and a bunch of Democrats elected?  What's more, what is there to stop Republicans from fucking it up in a decade or two?  7 1/2 years ago I voted for "change".  And we got our fucking health care!  A fucked up, piece of shit system which costs too much, STILL allows insurance companies to rape us, isn't controlling rates any more and is STILL not affordable for many struggling Americans, who now struggle EVEN MORE because they don't get a tax refund.  And we got gay marriage!   Obama finally finished "evolving" on the matter when it was done.

WHAT I BELIEVE WILL HELP: Enough people standing up and saying, "We are done being locked into a two party system.  An election can be competitive with three or more candidates."  Me changing my position to yours, that won't accomplish shit because it hasn't yet.  You changing your position to mine, that also won't do shit.  But a majority of people changing their position to mine, that has a chance of actually changing things.  Is that going to happen today or next week or within a decade?  I doubt it.  Will it help if I cave and do it your way?  In no way.

WHY I DON'T THINK MY POSITION IS SELFISH AND YOURS IS: That one's simple.  I'm not asking anything of you.  I'm not asking you to change.  I'm not telling you that my opinion is "right" and there is something wrong with you if you disagree.  You are the one asking for MY vote and stigmatizing anyone not willing to give it.  It's a dick move.  The conversation goes a little like this.  YOU: Give me your vote!  ME: No!  YOU: That makes you an asshole!

ok, so we're in agreement that a third party candidate doesn't stand a chance and it would be a waste of a vote.

I'd suggest you be more clear with your points, if you aren't in disagreement.

BTW. You're off base with
"I see you as looking only short, term, at each individual election, instead of actually working toward long-term change.  You say that the way to get this change is to do it your way.  How is that working out for you?  Dodd-Frank was passed...and then gutted.  There was too much money in politics...so money became speech, and we can't get enough speech in politics.  A handful of banks pulled a job on US and got away with it.  After 40 years we are STILL fighting the abortion fight.  After 50 years we are STILL fighting the civil rights fight."

Re-read what I wrote. I said it's a long process, from the beginning and you can't just pretend the rest of the government away until the presidential election that happens every 4 years. How saying that is selfish, is beyond me.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 01:04:47 AM
Uhh. Well she is the only other major party candidate. "convincing" isn't the term that I would use to say what you're trying to say. I would say "observe". As in we observed the reality that we are in. lol

The segment of my post you cut that line out of was referring to the primary.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 01:04:47 AM
And on that note, if you can't calm yourself, I'd advise you take a breather. I mean.... you're spelling out the letters in lol as "el oh el".... in all caps. It's pretty obvious you're giving us emotional responses and not thought out, rational ones.

Anyway. #trump2016 #buildawall #chinachinachinachina #yourefired #unemployment2016 #makeamericahateagain2016

I gotta start prepping myself to worship our inevitable pumpkinfaced overlord.

I spelled lol out in caps. Things are really starting to get out of hand.

Yes its true, I have emotions. Guilty as charged. I'll even go a step further and admit that its possible for someone to inflame them. For example, when some sanctimonious hypocrite tries to convince me that I'm being selfish for not doing what they want me to do with my vote. And of course after I repeatedly explain to him exactly why he is wrong he summons his rapier wit and decimates my argument by repeating his previous position virtually word for word. Over and over.

Its true. Its all true. My patience has a limit.

Guys...Voting for your narrow self-interest is selfish. Voting for someone because you think its the right thing to do is not. Misguided maybe, even foolish- but not selfish.

Voting for a third-party candidate is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, its sometimes the only effective way of getting long-term change. In Britain, the Labour Party started out as a third party. It took years before they got in power, but we in the UK wouldn't have (for example) the NHS if voters hadn't seen that neither of the existing parties served the interests of working people, and that the only realistic way towards a more egalitarian society was supporting a new political party. I return to a point I made earlier in the thread: if you always accept the lesser evil then all that you will ever get is evils.

So voting third party isn't throwing your vote away and it isn't selfish. However, under present circumstances, it is imho decidedly ill-advised. Hillary is distasteful; Trump is dangerous. This isn't a normal election, and keeping Trump out should really be the priority- even if it means voting for a lying corporate shill.

I find it bizarre that anyone thinks that voting a third party is somehow "rejecting the system." You're not "rejecting" the system by voting third party, you're playing into it. You're playing into it because the voting system we use naturally penalizes third parties by splitting the vote: it effectively hands victory to the candidate who has policy that is most unlike what you want. Eventually people get tired of not getting any what they want and go back to voting a major party to get some of what they want.

Third parties in the US have become major parties, but that happens because the growing third party eats the weaker major parties for breakfast, as what happened to the Whigs â€" the new Republican party effectively ate them, just as the Whigs had done to the old Republicans before them. And even then it doesn't always work, like what happened to the Bull Moose party. It made a damn good showing in the 1912 presidential election but fell apart after that.

The primaries are really the places to be to start the change in the political landscape. The two major parties have to be weakened before change will happen.

Anyway, I wouldn't call someone who doesn't listen to reason and use their vote effectively "selfish" â€" I would call them "stupid." They have used their vote in a way that will most effectively see to it that they get almost nothing of what they want out of the election. Our election system is flawed right down to its basic assumptions, and anyone who votes as if that were not the case is only going to get disappointment.

Reading this thread has been interesting.

If Hillary Clinton wasn't such a weak candidate, this wouldn't be being discussed in such a manner.  Pity to think she can't win on her own merits as in straight up she's Good for American's, rather indy/Sanders voters have to be pushed to consider Trump as more evil/dangerous.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 03, 2016, 05:32:56 PM
ok, so we're in agreement that a third party candidate doesn't stand a chance and it would be a waste of a vote.

No, we are not.  I'm done.

Oh. Ok. At least we cleared that up... lol

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 05, 2016, 03:02:10 PM
Oh. Ok. At least we cleared that up... lol

Well, you know what they say.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him understand your political view if he really doesn't want to.

Quote from: widdershins on August 08, 2016, 05:08:28 PM
Well, you know what they say.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him understand your political view if he really doesn't want to.

Yes. And that can go both ways, btw. But if you already realized that it goes both ways, at least I know you're semi-self aware ;)

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 08, 2016, 08:59:56 PM
Yes. And that can go both ways, btw. But if you already realized that it goes both ways, at least I know you're semi-self aware ;)

I do understand your point.  I've been hearing it all my life.  I just disagree with the logic.

Quote from: widdershins on August 09, 2016, 12:38:32 PM
I do understand your point.  I've been hearing it all my life.  I just disagree with the logic.

Yes. I know. I understand with, but disagree with yours as well. Or did you not understand that?

P.S. there's probably a reason you've been hearing it all your life  :eyes:

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 09, 2016, 01:07:13 PM
Yes. I know. I understand with, but disagree with yours as well. Or did you not understand that?

P.S. there's probably a reason you've been hearing it all your life  :eyes:

That statement isn't entirely honest.  It suggests that this "reason" is that there's something to it when, in fact, the whole "throwing your vote away" thing is entirely opinion, true only if you look at it from one point of view instead of another.  Likewise many might say I am "Throwing my money away" by giving to someone who claims to be in need, but may not be.  I disagree with that too.  I am 99% certain I have been scammed by people claiming to be in need just looking for a quick buck.  But for me anything less than 100% certainty, without doubt isn't good enough reason to turn a person away.  So was I taken?  Yeah, probably.  Did I "throw my money away"?  That depends how you look at it.  You could look at it like there's a 99% chance it was a scam, then assume the other 1% is irrelevant, therefor the money is wasted or "thrown away".  Or you could look at it like I gambled with it.  There was a 99% chance I would lose, but a 1% chance I would really be helping someone in need.  I don't like those odds, but I'll play them every time if I have the cash to spare.  So from my point of view, there is a really good chance I got scammed but STILL I did not "throw my money away" because I did the right thing, from my point of view, just in case.

And there's always the easy cheap shot, "There's probably a reason you've been hearing all your life that Jesus is coming back for his people any time now."  If I was religious that statement WOULD come back to bite you in the ass.  It's an argument style posing as evidence of something.  Nothing more.

Quote from: widdershins on August 09, 2016, 05:06:42 PM
If I was religious that statement WOULD come back to bite you in the ass.

Ummmm. No. because I know the reason is that people have a deep ingrained want to believe in the supernatural. It's a completely different topic. Although even if it is the same, there is a reason for both.

The fact that you are throwing your vote away is not an opinion, unless the point of you voting for a third party candidate is a way of saying "See! They got 10% of the votes! They weren't completely forgotten about!" or something like that. As for the easy cheap shots, I guess they are easy... The disconnection from reality is very obvious. I would call them blunt reality checks though.

The primaries are over. I was rooting for and voted for Bernie, but he lost. He was the ONLY one other than Hillary that had a chance at beating Trump, in fact, he had a better chance. It's time to acknowledge the reality we're living in right now and reality is that the two main party candidates are Hillary and Donald.

First reason that voting for an independent is stupid:
Who of the independents are you voting for? Jill Stein? Gary Johnson? No one of the people, even with in the people that are voting independent, can agree on who to vote for. So not only will there be a minuscule amount of people voting for independents, but the minuscule amount of people voting for independents are going to be split among themselves.  And while this small amount of people voting for their third party candidate will not be enough to elect them, it will be enough to split the vote and cause Trump to be elected. Trump, after all is ahead in the polls. He has this in the bag so far, if the people with their head in the sand, bernie-or-busting, don't get their stubborn act together.

If you want to make a change, this presidential election is not the time. Change is made during the rest of the elections...  voting out shitty senators and representatives. It's a long process that involves more than just the presidential election. Voting in protest of Hillary, who is not too much worse than any other president we've had in recent years is not going to fix anything. It will only hurt things.

I said this before in one way or another, but

We're going down a shit river. About half of the people are trying to steer this boat towards the constipation and corn chunks. It will destroy our propeller and it smells like ass. About 40% of us are trying to steer this boat towards the diarrhea. It will still smell like ass, but at least it won't break the boat past repair. The last approx 10% is trying to steer us in to the fork in the middle because they think there is some freshwater ravine that isn't actually there.

Just steer the boat in to the diarrhea and navigate to a nicer river once we get past this fork.

I guess the other bottom line is, if you think a third party candidate has a chance and voting for them in the general presidential election will actually doing something, you're in some sort of denial.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 09, 2016, 11:01:35 PM
I guess the other bottom line is, if you think a third party candidate has a chance and voting for them in the general presidential election will actually doing something, you're in some sort of denial.

In some states, Jill Stein isn't even on the ballot (http://www.snopes.com/green-party-state-ballots/).  And she polls in the single digits (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html).  Same for Gary Johnson, though he's at least on the ballot in all states.  So, unless there's some sort of miracle, no third party candidate is going to come close to winning it.

And if they manage to sway more people than expected, they'd just act as spoilers - splitting the liberal vote among multiple liberal candidates and/or splitting the conservative vote among multiple conservative candidates.  In first-past-the-post-voting, splitting the vote is a great way to achieve electoral defeat and get your ideological opponent in office.

The DNC platform contains a plank for $15/hr minimum wage, an aggressive climate change plan, an end to capital punishment, it calls for a pathway for marijuana legalization, etc.  It actually contains some pretty good science policies (http://www.livescience.com/55581-analysis-of-dnc-2016-platform.html).  The RNC platform contains some pretty far-right stuff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Republican_National_Convention#Platform) plus some pretty shoddy science (http://www.livescience.com/55481-analysis-of-rnc-2016-platform.html).  I dunno about you guys but I would much, much rather have a Dem in office trying to implement the DNC platform than a Republican in office trying to implement the RNC platform.

But hey, if any of you guys want a pro-life Supreme Court for the next couple decades, some more of that good ol' clean coal, "religious liberty" that sounds an awful lot like a government endorsement of religious bigotry, and a repeal of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision (which effectively legalized gay marriage), then vote for the Donald or third party or you know what, just stay home.  Any of those options all work towards the same outcome.

Yup. Like I said many, many times. You have the right to vote for anyone you want. But be aware of the effect it has on the election. Like... realistically aware.

I agree with @Hakurei Reimu though. and I take back the "immoral" comments. It's just plain stupid. There are only 2 candidates in this election weather you like it/acknowledge it or not.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 09, 2016, 10:49:50 PM
The fact that you are throwing your vote away is not an opinion, unless the point of you voting for a third party candidate is a way of saying "See! They got 10% of the votes! They weren't completely forgotten about!" or something like that. As for the easy cheap shots, I guess they are easy... The disconnection from reality is very obvious. I would call them blunt reality checks though.

It is opinion, not "fact", as evidenced by your immediate use of the word "unless" right after that statement.  Facts are not facts "unless" anything.  Reality is not reality "unless" anything.  I'm only "throwing my vote away" if my vote did not have the effect I intended.  Your view of what may be the "intended effect" is just a lot more narrow than mine.  From you point of view there are only two possible intelligent intended effects.  A) get a candidate elected and B) keep a candidate from getting elected.  Anything else falls into the category, C) some other very stupid reason.  That all other possible reasons are stupid is your opinion.  It is not a fact.  It is not reality.  It is not denial.  It is your opinion.  Calling it fact won't make it fact.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 10, 2016, 12:37:43 AM
But hey, if any of you guys want a pro-life Supreme Court for the next couple decades, some more of that good ol' clean coal, "religious liberty" that sounds an awful lot like a government endorsement of religious bigotry, and a repeal of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision (which effectively legalized gay marriage), then vote for the Donald or third party or you know what, just stay home.  Any of those options all work towards the same outcome.

Man, you people get heated and throw logic right out the door when it comes to politics.  I don't even know if there has been a logical fallacy invented for this strange argument.  A false dichotomy, maybe?  On the surface, anyway.  You have reduced the possible options to only two.  I can vote for Hillary and save the country or literally do anything else and condemn us all.  Bullshit.  Just plain bullshit.  Simple math tells you that's bullshit.  A vote FOR Trump tips the scale away from Hillary.  Not voting has no effect either way.

You can point out how "stupid" I am all day long and it's not going to change a thing.  Why?  For one, you're being irrational and illogical, calling opinions facts and making false equivalencies.  I'm not convinced by bullshit.  I know your ACTUAL argument already and I disagree with it, so you guys keep making shit up and pretending it's reality.  If I reject your very simple core argument you really have nowhere to go but the Faux News approach you BOTH just used, "If we don't elect Hillary we're all going to die!"  Is there some truth to that?  Of course.  Is it likely to be the worst thing ever?  If the world survived Hitler I think it can survive Trump.

And two, you will NEVER convince me that waiting to decide for whom I will cast my vote until AFTER the ticket is actually finalized is IN ANY WAY the "stupid" move.  Feel free to call me stupid for waiting until I'm fully informed to make a decision.  I'll just continue to laugh at the incredible ignorance of that statement and move on.

If you're emotional when you're making your argument then your argument is probably not logically sound.  SOME of the things you guys say is logically sound, much of it is not.  I mean, come on!  Voting for Trump or not voting at all is equivalent?  I really cannot fathom how you, of all people, cannot recognize where you've seen the arguments you're using before.  "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."  Doesn't that sound just a little like some familiar bullshit there?  You either vote for Hillary or you're evil, there is no middle ground?  That doesn't sound even a tiny bit like some bullshit you've heard a thousand times?

Many of my opinions are unpopular.  I am very idealistic in many ways, and I do realize that idealistic is often not realistic.  So I do make a conscious effort to weigh my opinion against reality.  I have not yet decided how I will vote.  I will PROBABLY be voting for Hillary, as I have said repeatedly.  But if you think you're going to bully or shame me into making that decision right now, before we even know all the players, you might as well give that shit up now because it is not happening.  If you think you're going to convince me that I have only two choices, vote for Hillary or vote for the end of life as we know it, we all have bullshit meters here which are very sensitive to all bullshit but our own and you're setting mine off big time.  I'm not going to change who I am to make you happy.  You're not going to change my opinion by trying to shame me out of it, blame me for unfavorable election outcomes, insist your opinions have been somehow magically transformed into very shiny facts or insult me or my intelligence.  You guys aren't even making arguments.  You haven't been all along.  You're making accusations, if anything.  When have any of you EVER convinced anyone of anything by saying, "What you say is stupid!  If you don't want to be stupid agree with me NOW!"?  I'll take, "Never" for $1,000, Alex.

So yeah, keep it up.  The sky is falling, I'm stupid, voting for Trump or Rudolph will have exactly the same effect on the outcome, my vote matters to the EXTREME if I cast it for Hillary, otherwise it cannot possibly have any effect whatsoever, some other stupid bullshit.  We all know where this is going.  It's a pissing contest and nobody is changing a thing.  I'm not here to argue.  Contrary to how it may seem, I usually hate arguing.  I really fucking hate it most of the time.  People are assholes when they argue, myself included, and I don't like that, even about myself.  Now I LOVE to "discuss rationally".

But I can see that's not going to happen here because people who disagree with me don't disagree "rationally", they disagree "emotionally", which leads not to "discussion", but to "argument".  So, you win.  I'm wrong.  It won't change my vote one bit, or my opinion, but I'm wrong, you're right, Trump is going to kill us all if elected, if I don't vote for Hillary it's my fault, personally, if Trump is elected, of course he WILL BE elected if I, personally, don't vote for Hillary, I'm too stupid to understand what you're saying, getting 500,000 illegal Mexicans to vote FOR Trump is exactly the same as not getting 500,000 illegal Mexicans to vote at all, all that other bullshit you all said...it's all true.  Even the truly crazy shit.  Pickled, all of your opinions are facts.  If you like tea, tea is fucking great and everyone should like it or they're stupid.  Hydra, if I don't vote for Hillary a billion times it's the same thing as if I cast a billion votes for Trump, there is no difference whatsoever.  It's all true and we're all going to die if I don't personally vote for Hillary.  And if Hillary doesn't win it will be my fault, personally, for even considering not doing what I'm told and speaking out against the "throwing your vote away" belief system...I mean, fact system.  I suck so much and you guys are so great and I wish I was you but I'm not 'cause I'm stupid, you win.

Lol ok, windershins. I thought you said you were done, btw. Or would you like some more?

Sent from your mom.

I'm just going to say it and leave it. Yes. We know you're "probably voting for hillary". How you think that stating the fact, not opinion, fact that voting for third party candidates is a waste of a vote, is bullying them in to voting for hillary, I don't know. I've said many times. It's your freedom to vote for whoever you want and even not show up to the ballot box. I am making sure that you and anyone else here that seems to be misinformed/unaware/in denial/ etc that they know that there are effects of their actions. In the case of people thinking voting third party will actually do something, they all seem very misinformed what the effects of that third party vote are. Even you, who "probably will vote hillary".

No third party candidate will have a chance. You have essentially 3 choices. Vote Trump, vote Clinton, throw your own voice in to the trash bin.

Go vote for Trump. Go Vote for Clinton. Go vote for Stein or Johnson. Just know what your vote is actually doing.

Luckily, as of now, Trump is a tiny bit behind Clinton. I'd rather not it be this close though. Johnson though?He doesn't have a chance. Not one.
Here are the numbers to the facts that you call my "opinion":
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson-5949.html

If you want to keep going, @widdershins , let me know. I'll point out as many flaws in your "it's not throwing away a vote" logic as you want to bring up

I hope you are right, that Gary Johnson is on the ballot in my state.  Last national election, they only allowed the D and R folks.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 10, 2016, 04:55:22 PM
I'm just going to say it and leave it. Yes. We know you're "probably voting for hillary". How you think that stating the fact, not opinion, fact that voting for third party candidates is a waste of a vote...

I'm not reading past that part.  Prove it's a "fact", without exception.  Do that and I'll read the rest.

Uhhh... well I posted a link with polls of the most preferred candidates. I also have provided facts throughout this entire thread, as Hydra did also. You're choosing to not accept them as fact, similarly to how theists don't accept many factual things as fact.

Sent from your mom.

"The solar system is geocentric!"
"No it's not. The fact is that the earth revolves around the sun.. "
" no that's not a fact. That's your opinion! I refuse to read what you write until you prove it's a fact! "
*displays charts and research etc*
" no! That's not a fact. That's your opinion! Prove that it's a fact! "

You are starting to sound like the geocentric guy

Sent from your mom.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 11, 2016, 04:43:09 PM
Uhhh... well I posted a link with polls of the most preferred candidates. I also have provided facts throughout this entire thread, as Hydra did also. You're choosing to not accept them as fact, similarly to how theists don't accept many factual things as fact.

Sent from your mom.

And I have explained several times why I disagree and given specific examples on why it was not, in my opinion, a "waste of a vote".  You're choosing to ignore my argument the same way theists refuse to ignore any inconvenient argument.  But let me spell it out for you with definitions.

Fact - that which is indisputably true.

Well, I seem to be disputing it.

Waste - an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

I think we can both agree that voting for a third party is not "extravagant".  So is it careless?

Careless - not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors.

Nope.  I'm putting a lot of thought into this, even refraining from choosing a candidate with any certainty until I know who all the candidates are.  If anything you're being more careless than me.

So it must be "to no purpose".  But there IS a purpose for going through the trouble to cast a vote, EVEN IF that vote is for a third party.  NOT ONLY can you not even meet the basic definition of the word, you, yourself, have disputed your own claim!

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 09, 2016, 10:49:50 PM
The fact that you are throwing your vote away is not an opinion, unless...

When does a fact stop being a fact?  When my intentions meet certain requirements as set forth by you?  When the stars are in the proper alignment?  When it's not inconvenient for your argument?  No, it's when it is no longer "indisputably true".  That doesn't change based on my intentions.  That changes based on evidence.

I have made all these observations before, many times.  You just refuse to see them.  In my case voting for a third party is not an extravagance, it is not done carelessly and it is not done "for no purpose" and therefore does not meet the very definition of being a "waste".  By those definitions, which are the first definitions I found which matched the usage, if I were to vote for a third party it would not be a "waste".  In YOUR OPINION, that is wrong.  But your opinions are not facts because you want them to be.

Yeah, it would have been easier to just claim that I had already proved you wrong several times and that you, like a theist, just refused to see how right I was, and then follow that up with a ridiculous example so that I could pretend that it was actually you being that ridiculous, but I thought I'd just do the actual work to actually prove my point rather than just claim I already had and then make fun of you.  I got enough of that shit from Randy.  I really expect better from you.

If it's your opinion, it's not objectively true. But just like theists that say it's their opinion that earth revolves around the sun, it's not an opinion. It's just flat out being misinformed.

Sent from your mom.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 11, 2016, 05:11:51 PM
If it's your opinion, it's not objectively true. But just like theists that say it's their opinion that earth revolves around the sun, it's not an opinion. It's just flat out being misinformed.

Sent from your mom.

I just proved my point.  You keep avoiding that chore.

By the way, I was done.  But then the conversation got more civil and I was again interested.  It's interesting all these little distractions you throw into the conversation to avoid admitting that you're wrong.  Take your response here, for example.

QuoteIf it's your opinion, it's not objectively true.

If WHAT is my opinion?  That is a really vague, short post in response to a very detailed post where I gave evidence in support of my claim that voting for a third party being a "wasted vote" is not fact.  I gave details, definitions and explanations and you responded with this vague, short post without a single thing to back anything you say and then throw in a couple of cheap shots where you once again claim I am like a theist and then throw in "misinformed".

For the record, unlike you, I did not say your argument style was like that of a theist to take a shot at you.  I said your argument style was like that of a theist because your argument style was like that of a theist and still is.  I give support for my claims, you respond with cheap shots, being very careful to avoid posting any actual evidence in support of your claim because as long as you post only arguments and no evidence there is nothing which you ever have to accept as having been "proved" to have been wrong.  You can't prove an opinion wrong.  Neither can you prove an argument wrong if that argument has no supporting evidence to dispute.  That is why I said your argument style was like a theist.  Not just because I am so super right and you disagree with me so you are like a misinformed theist who is stupid and smells bad.  You really are being very childish.

You keep insisting that it's I think you're wrong to vote for whoever you want and that is misrepresenting what I'm saying. I've said many times that you are free to vote for whoever you want to vote for or not vote at all. All I'm saying is that if you vote for a thirty party candidate, you might as well save the energy and stay home, because it isn't going to do anything and it will have zero effect on the election. I took back the "morality" of it a while back. But even then the main point remains the same. Voting for third party for  president is a waste of your ballot. Plain and simple. That is fact. Third party candidates have no chance at winning. Voting for them will have the same effect on this country as if you stayed at home. That is a fact, not an opinion

Answer this for me, you're given 1000 dollars to bet on a horse race. The race contains 3 horses. Horse a and b are jacked on steroids and have been born from a strong breed and trained almost every day of their lives. It's frowned on that they are on steroids, but it is not illegal in this horse racing league. Horse c is a runt. He was also raised by a poor family and while he was trained frequently, he only averages a lap time of 2:30,where a and b average lap times of 1:10 and 1:06.
Betting on one of the horses does not only pay you back if they win; it also funds the trainers to help train and feed and use supplements on the horse.

Who do you put your money on?

Sent from your mom.

The flat Earth folks are much more reasonable than the geocentric solar system folks ;-)

I think it's funny that he thinks I compared his argument to the way a flat-earther or geocentric theist stubbornly insists their world view is fact to take a shot at him.

I also think it's funny he insists that I remind him of Randy.

Both of these things tell me how emotionally driven his position is, as well as a few other things

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 11, 2016, 06:01:23 PM
You keep insisting that it's I think you're wrong to vote for whoever you want and that is misrepresenting what I'm saying. I've said many times that you are free to vote for whoever you want to vote for or not vote at all. All I'm saying is that if you vote for a thirty party candidate, you might as well save the energy and stay home, because it isn't going to do anything and it will have zero effect on the election...

The title of the thread says that "voting your heart is immoral".  Until recently you agreed with that word, which you then changed to "stupid".  Both of those words, however, represent ideas which are ALWAYS opinions, by the way, NEVER facts.

All I am insisting is that your opinion is not "fact", it is "opinion".  That's all I've ever insisted.  You can think it's stupid, immoral, sinful, whatever.  But don't present your beliefs as facts.  It annoys me, as it does you under different circumstances.  The whole "You are immoral/stupid/evil for disagreeing with me because my beliefs are facts" thing is infuriating.

The only problem we really have is that you keep reducing my vote to nothing more than "effect on the election".  I understand that is the major reason most people vote.  If that were the only reason to vote THEN this belief would be actual fact.  But there are other reasons to vote.  You've given some yourself.  If my major reason for voting is something other than "effect on the outcome of the election" then, from my perspective, it may actually be immoral or even stupid to vote for Trump or Hillary (that is not what I believe).  Being "from my perspective" means it would be my opinion, not a fact.

Your horse betting analogy doesn't really apply.  Voting and betting have very little in common except on the thinnest of surfact.  I have had a long week and don't feel like getting into it further, but you're a smart enough guy (gal?  I make assumptions) that you already know what I'm talking about, I'm sure.

It's difficult not to be emotionally driven when someone calls you immoral, stupid, ignorant, irresponsible...I think we were up to at least half a dozen or so negative words you've used to describe me at one point.  It is difficult to stay emotionally detached at that point, but I do my best.  I don't remember giving any flat-earth comparison.  Maybe you're confusing me and Baruch, mixing us up into one "opponent"?  I have had a shitty week and haven't thought about this much.  Frankly, I don't remember half the discussion.  But some of your arguments do ACTUALLY remind me of Randy, particularly the ones where you continually insist that your belief or opinion is "fact".  Is that not what Randy did here for months on end?  If I were to insist that cheddar is the best cheese and this is a "fact", would I not then remind you of Randy?  I don't like to see fellow atheists cling to belief systems the same way theists do.  When I see it I will point it out.  It's not to insult you (okay, it might have been a little at the time).  But the MAIN reason is to say, "Hey, you're doing what he did.  WE are better than that.  WE don't use those argument styles."  Why?  Because the mistakes you make in an argument come back to haunt ME later just like the mistakes I make in an argument come back to haunt YOU later when some theists looks at atheism as some kind of hive mind and blames me for your sins and you for mine.

Ok. If it makes you happy that I remove one word, it' s not stupid.

But I still stand by the fact that voting third party will literally do nothing. Zilch. Nada. It won't make any sort of difference at all because a third party candidate has absolutely no chance at winning. The only way we are going to change this country, is not through presidential elections, but through electing out senators and representatives... the other 2/3 of the judicial system. That will be a long, tedious process, but it needs to be done. We can't pretend that part of the government away and then complain that the President isn't doing their job. The other 2/3 will impede an otherwise good president in to not being able to accomplish anything.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on August 17, 2016, 02:23:22 PM
Ok. If it makes you happy that I remove one word, it' s not stupid.

But I still stand by the fact that voting third party will literally do nothing. Zilch. Nada. It won't make any sort of difference at all because a third party candidate has absolutely no chance at winning. The only way we are going to change this country, is not through presidential elections, but through electing out senators and representatives... the other 2/3 of the judicial system. That will be a long, tedious process, but it needs to be done. We can't pretend that part of the government away and then complain that the President isn't doing their job. The other 2/3 will impede an otherwise good president in to not being able to accomplish anything.

I can agree with most of that, except you came a little bit too far my way.  There was really never any doubt that voting for a third party would not produce the effect of getting the candidate elected.  But it will not have exactly "zero" effect.  You were right that it may have the effect of getting the "wrong" candidate elected.  That I never disputed, just that it was not the same as staying home.

To be clear, it is still a viable choice if the intent of your vote has some reason OTHER THAN getting a person elected and that reason is more important to you than getting a person elected.  For instance, let's say I write in Bernie Sanders and so do 30 million other people.  30 million votes won't get Bernie the presidency, but it would cost Hillary the presidency.  Trump would be president.  So the immediate and obvious effect is that it cost Hillary the presidency.  But there would be another effect.  If 30 million people wrote in the same candidate, that's a big deal.  That changes the demographic.  It potentially destroys the 2 party stranglehold on the system.  Now is THAT going to happen?  Probably not.  Maybe some day, but not likely today.  But to me, changing the entire demographic would be better/more important than changing the outcome of a single election.  IF 30 million people wrote in Bernie, even though he's not running, yes, Trump would win, but it would be a game changer.  Once people lost the mentality that voting for a third party is not "throwing your vote away", only then is it actually possible to get a third party candidate in office.

Now I am certainly not advocating for writing in Bernie, and I will certainly not be doing that.  It would take a whole hell of a lot of people to be "stupid" for that to make a difference, though it might not take 30 million.  But I do like to stay at least reality adjacent here.

For the record, I have evaluated the current list of idiots and asshole and come to the conclusion that in this particular election, while I still disagree that voting for a candidate you believe in is immoral, I believe that in this case voting for anyone other than Hillary would be absolutely moronic (personal opinion here, not absolute fact).  Trump is an obvious "NO FUCKING WAY!!!", but then I always vote for "NOT the Republican".  But the other two, they're just no "presidential material".  They have all these grand plans to fix everything suspiciously similar to the get-rich-quick scheme of Underwear Gnomes.

Stein is going to use accounting magic to make student loan disappear in the same way the government took care of the banks...except it's not.  The way she wants to do it is something she obviously doesn't understand because it doesn't work the way she thinks it does, it wasn't used the way she thinks it was and, oh yeah, the government actually made money on the bailout in the end because it wasn't just "free money".

And Johnson wants a "consumption tax", which every damned body knows is going to hit the poor and the middle class the hardest.  Hell, even the people who say it won't actually fucking know better.  But he's going to fix that by sending each and every one of us monthly "prebate checks".  USA!  Now with a 90% more cluster-fuckey tax system!  Wouldn't that just be awesome?

And, like Stein, his plan is "Step 1, change the tax system.  Step 2, ?????.  Step 3, profit!"

Both are too stupid to be president.  We tried Forest Gump with the last president and it didn't work out so well for us (Bush, not Obama, the current president).  There is another guy, but he's a nobody and, worse, he's a "constitutional conservative", which means he wants to pretend the country can be run exactly was it was in 1776, when murders never happened, gay people weren't invented yet and every white, male Christian had equal rights with every other white, male Christian.  That makes him just about the fucktardiest of them all.

So, Hillary it is, not that I ever really disliked her anyway.  Most of the shit people hate about her is shit Faux News and the dickless right just made up.  A vote for Hillary is a vote, pretty much for the only game in town that isn't going to screw us all.

Well if you happen to be Left wing, or a Progressive Democrat ... then it is pretty obvious who to vote for ... unless you are Left wing and still pissed that Bernie didn't get the D-nomination and so will sit out the election.

On policy ideas ... yes, it is possible to make the student debt go away, same as it was created out of nothing in the first place.  This all started with a reform of the student financial support system that happened under Obama.  It can be un-reformed.  That isn't to say, we can send everyone to college for free ... there is no free lunch.  But the student loans (currently outstanding) are in fake dollars anyway.  The crooks who fronted the loans at the behest of the Feds, they might go bankrupt, but no real loss there.  The idea that all politically connected businesses are guaranteed survival, let alone a consistent profit ... is fascism.

And yes, probably a consumption tax .... that doesn't involve deleting most of the other taxes, is a bad idea.  Americans are already over taxed at the middle and lower levels.  There is a general need to reform taxes, but that is bigger than just changing the form of the tax (from income to consumption).  The best thing would be a collapse of the US into chaos, and the death of the Federal government (because the military and GS employees no longer have a pay check).  Onward Soviet!

Quote from: Baruch on October 27, 2016, 01:04:29 PM
Well if you happen to be Left wing, or a Progressive Democrat ... then it is pretty obvious who to vote for ... unless you are Left wing and still pissed that Bernie didn't get the D-nomination and so will sit out the election.

On policy ideas ... yes, it is possible to make the student debt go away, same as it was created out of nothing in the first place.  This all started with a reform of the student financial support system that happened under Obama.  It can be un-reformed.  That isn't to say, we can send everyone to college for free ... there is no free lunch.  But the student loans (currently outstanding) are in fake dollars anyway.  The crooks who fronted the loans at the behest of the Feds, they might go bankrupt, but no real loss there.  The idea that all politically connected businesses are guaranteed survival, let alone a consistent profit ... is fascism.

And yes, probably a consumption tax .... that doesn't involve deleting most of the other taxes, is a bad idea.  Americans are already over taxed at the middle and lower levels.  There is a general need to reform taxes, but that is bigger than just changing the form of the tax (from income to consumption).  The best thing would be a collapse of the US into chaos, and the death of the Federal government (because the military and GS employees no longer have e pay check).  Onward Soviet!

It is possible to make all student debt go away, but it is not possible to make all student debt go away the way Stein thinks she's going to do it.

Johnson wants do do away with most other taxes and replace the whole works with a consumption tax.  Economists all agree it won't work.  Everyone agrees it targets "not the rich" most.  The general number thrown out is 28%, which is already a cut from the top tax bracket of 35%.  That aside, people who make thousands of dollars a year spend thousands of dollars a year, usually at or very near their total income.  People who make millions of dollars a year or more very rarely spend millions of dollars a year or more at or very near their total income.  It is an obvious and undeniable shift of the tax burden to those who can least afford to bear the tax burden when the only money you tax is "the money you have to spend to survive", which is exactly what a consumption tax does.

Any serious tax reform would have to deal with government spending.  The federal government would have to cut back.  They would have to eliminate things.  They would have to cut jobs.  Short term, it would suck ass.  Long term, it would be great for the country to have to live by a budget the way the rest of us do.

Personally I would like to see a "tax cap", an amount above which the government cannot charge.  And I mean all government agencies combined.  They can move the taxes up and down as much as they like, but they have to stay within the cap.  Personally, I don't think the government should be taking more than 25% of anyone's income, no matter how much you make.  So maybe the feds can take up to 17.5%, the state up to 5%, the county up to 2% and the city up to .5% for a total of no more than 25%.  Then you also get rid of all other taxes which are called taxes and fees which are taxes which aren't called taxes.  From that you get your property tax, your school tax, your sales tax, your Internet and telephone "fees", which are really taxes, but the FCC can't levy taxes, so they called them fees instead.  All of that would be gone.  You also don't pay to license cars or get a drivers license.  The only thing aside from that you could be charged is fines, and they need to reign those in too, including laws about where the money goes so police no longer have incentive to steal from people they pull over.  I would also like to see every person and every income type have the same rate.  No more bullshit "sliding scale" which goes up and up and up until your income is tens of millions and then plummets once you can afford to earn the types of income rich people get, like "capitol gains".  And to help the poor you just don't tax income for anyone on the first 2x poverty level they earn.  So if poverty level is $100, you don't tax the first $200 anybody earns.  If someone makes $201 then you tax them on the $1 they went over.

To be fair, I doubt that's actually realistic.  To be sure, the government would implode if they were restricted to such a budget.  It wouldn't be the same government we know today.  But when the recession hit and states were faced with lower tax revenues because of massive unemployment the response was too often to "raise taxes" to fill the gap.  Just let that sink in for a moment and think about what that means.  The people were making less, so the states decided to take a higher percentage of what they made so that the STATE didn't have to suffer like its people were suffering.  Not, "People are hurting.  There's no more money to take.  We need to cut back".  No, it was "People are hurting, but fuck them, we have pork projects to fund!"

I wouldn't mind a minor governmental implosion to get us out from under a tax system where the more money you make, the easier it is to avoid paying taxes.  Hell, my wife won on a scratch ticket one years and we learned about the "gambling losses" write off we could take.  The next year, however, when she didn't win, there was no such write off.  The system is rigged against the people.  But I don't want to see the death of the federal government.  It's because of them that my air isn't too toxic, I can mostly drink the water (so long as I don't drink too much or too often) and corporations don't outright own me from birth (it's more of a 50/50 split).

Policy battles ... the usual "reform" people mention is some form of "enabling of the market forces to provide X" ... which only generates another corporate welfare handout.  Consider if we did this with milk to children in elementary school.  Say the government creates a favored corporation monopoly, so they can charge $10 for a little carton of milk.  Then they propose, the tikes can't afford that, let's subsidize the parents so they can afford that ... lets create a bureaucracy to administrate this government program (in addition to the one that is making the milk monopoly work), so that now the net cost is $20 for a little carton of milk, after you have taken into account all the money changing hands.  So we provide $9 subsidy (a coupon) to the parents so they can pay $1 for their $10 milk, and the delivery bureaucracy consumes the remaining dollar on the delivery end ... and on the production end we provide restraint of trade worth $8 plus we have $1 milk with $1 for the production bureaucracy for a net of $10 on that end.  The producer gets to use the government at both ends ... the government gets $2 total for their contribution, and the parents get $9 coupon (fake) and the producer gets $9 total ($8 profit).  This is assuming that the milk company doesn't get a direct government subsidy as well.

Please don't quote "economists" ... same as quoting the Pope or the Brookings Institute!  If you can't do the math, then go back to school.  Also understand how creative accounting works, because that is the only way it is done now.

Quote from: widdershins on October 27, 2016, 12:25:12 PMFor the record, I have evaluated the current list of idiots and asshole and come to the conclusion that in this particular election, while I still disagree that voting for a candidate you believe in is immoral, I believe that in this case voting for anyone other than Hillary would be absolutely moronic (personal opinion here, not absolute fact).

Welcome to a few months ago.

So what happened to this "It's not about winning the election.  It's about rejecting the corrupt system in the hopes that enough people will eventually do the same to make a difference" stuff?  Are you nixxing your earlier protest voting stance?  Cause I don't see how that could possibly be squared with the assertion that not backing the Dem nominee would be absolutely moronic.

Ridding ourselves of bad student loans ...

Admit that we criminally pushed those loans (same as the first and second mortgage loans pushed before 2008).  The government is criminal, and the people pushing the loans are criminal, and the universities are accessories to the crime.  The students and their parents aren't innocent (nor the families that took out crooked mortgages).  We could choose to go punitive ... arrest the university officials, arrest the politicians, arrest the loan sharks, arrest the parents and arrest the students ... for RICO.  But it should be sufficient to repudiate in the law, all student loans issued since 2008 until the date of the new law which terminates this abuse.  Loans can be repudiated by government fiat.  The politicians, the parents, the students and the university officials avoid jail.  The loan sharks are driven into bankruptcy, and find new steam room criminal operations to work in.  The DINO/RINO crowd will want to transfer the $trillion IOU to the Federal Reserve, to paid for later by the taxpayers, but don't let them!

There will be fallout ... there will be no more student loans ... you pay cash, or you don't go.  Don't have $50k or $100k in the piggy bank?  Tough shit.  This will upset students, parents and university officials.  There are consequences to the bankruptcy of the US higher education system (hello online learning for free is here already).  Only rich parents will be able to afford to send rich students to college, as it was before WW II.  Just another temporary balloon market to bust.  Online learning is free; if you are still paying for it, you need to go to debtor's prison for idiots.  We will be able to close thousands of useless college classrooms (we don't need educated people in the US, the Chinese and Indians will supply the need), leaving the Ivy League to do what they do best ... baby sitting the scions of the rich, who will replace their parent "leaders of the nation" in due time.  America has had an aristocracy since the Gilded Age ... wake up.

On taxes just two ideas ...

A consumption tax instead of an income tax.  But make the consumption tax no more than 5%, similar to a municipal sales tax.  If the Feds need more tax than that (they can print an infinity of money anyway, see Dark Economy worth many trillions since 2000) they can just create it from nothing (without any Federal Reserve).  If you don't like that, maybe you should outlaw the Dark Economy, that really didn't exist before 2000 anyway, when Bill Clinton enabled it.  Yes sales tax is regressive on the poor ... but the poor should be regressed, not enabled.  Or if you really want, just give all the Federal sales tax back to the poor at the end of the year ... won't amount to much of the total anyway.

Now if you want a punitive tax on the rich as post facto revolutionary justice ... that is a different animal.  I would support a 100% tax on all income greater than $500k per annum ... and anyone going expat ... looses everything they own in the US, as traitors should.  Unless we simply want to kill them and get their misery over with ;-)

Third party info ...

Evan McMullin in Utah, may decide the national election.  Third party Republican may defeat both Trump and Clinton.

Gary Johnson has lost 1/2 of his supporters in the past 2 months.  Looks like I will have to vote early and often ;-)

I will say this, Baruch really stepped his "...wtf." game up today...

Quote from: Shiranu on October 28, 2016, 03:12:42 PM
I will say this, Baruch really stepped his "...wtf." game up today...

He's been in that mode lately.

Quote from: Hydra009 on October 27, 2016, 06:15:02 PM
Welcome to a few months ago.

So what happened to this "It's not about winning the election.  It's about rejecting the corrupt system in the hopes that enough people will eventually do the same to make a difference" stuff?  Are you nixxing your earlier protest voting stance?  Cause I don't see how that could possibly be squared with the assertion that not backing the Dem nominee would be absolutely moronic.

Yeah, I know.  I just wanted to update the decision I came to.

No, I'm not nixxing my earlier stance.  Hillary IS the best candidate.  Stein and Johnson are neither one very bright, Trump has serious mental issues, the other guy is a Republican and I always, ALWAYS vote for "NOT the Republican".  My stance doesn't have to change to reach this conclusion.

And for the record, I never said anything about any "protest vote" or "rejecting" any system.  My stance was about voting for the person I thought best represented my views.  In this case that is definitely Hillary by a mile in a half-mile race.  In this case, voting for Hillary does not represent a change of any kind in my stance.  Look up any post I made where I mentioned her and you'll see that I have been saying for months that I didn't think she was that bad a person or candidate and that most of what people dislike about her is just bullshit Republicans just made up and people bought.  In fact, early on in my posting about Hillary (in a Bernie thread) I was repeatedly being accused of being a Hillary supporter because I defended her repeatedly.  Not that I have any great love for her or anything.  It's just that, as I see it, the facts show that she's not that bad.  A little ignorant of the plight of the middle class, but that also describes <name a politician> to one degree or another.

Quote from: Baruch on October 27, 2016, 06:25:02 PM
On taxes just two ideas ...

A consumption tax instead of an income tax.  But make the consumption tax no more than 5%, similar to a municipal sales tax.  If the Feds need more tax than that (they can print an infinity of money anyway, see Dark Economy worth many trillions since 2000) they can just create it from nothing (without any Federal Reserve).  If you don't like that, maybe you should outlaw the Dark Economy, that really didn't exist before 2000 anyway, when Bill Clinton enabled it.  Yes sales tax is regressive on the poor ... but the poor should be regressed, not enabled.  Or if you really want, just give all the Federal sales tax back to the poor at the end of the year ... won't amount to much of the total anyway.

Now if you want a punitive tax on the rich as post facto revolutionary justice ... that is a different animal.  I would support a 100% tax on all income greater than $500k per annum ... and anyone going expat ... looses everything they own in the US, as traitors should.  Unless we simply want to kill them and get their misery over with ;-)

I'm not getting to all the shit you said which I think is a little off the wall, but a consumption tax is bad for anyone who isn't earning millions a year.  And a 5% consumption tax would make the federal government extinct.  I tried learning Russian once.  It's not fucking easy.  No thank you.

Those who don't earn much spend 100% of what they earn, or near enough.  Those who earn too much spend a much smaller percentage.  Let's throw out a ridiculously high number for top earners and say 10%.  That means that the crooks at the top aren't being taxed on 90% of their earnings, giving them even more incentive to hoard all the money than they have now.  Don't spend and it's tax free.  When you want to spend, spend it somewhere without a consumption tax.  There is no way to implement a system where that couldn't happen.

As for taxing 100% over $500K income, I don't begrudge someone a massive income.  If you own a company that sells billions of dollars in merchandise, good for you!  You've earned a big-ass income!  If you figure out which companies to invest in to make you $50,000,000 this year, great!  You are a smart person and you deserve that income.  I just don't think anyone earning $50,000,000 should be taxed at a lower percentage than someone earning $50,000, ESPECIALLY when we have a progressive tax system where the more you earn, the higher the percentage you pay.  At least, until you're filthy rich.

The right calls it "income redistribution", and to an extent, it is.  but if you don't do something about the 400 people in the world who hoard half the world's wealth eventually nobody else will have any wealth.

As for the government printing money whenever they want, it's not exactly "whenever they want".  If they printed $100 trillion today to pay off the national debt and have some spending cash on hand the dollar would bottom out in the global market and the $100 trillion they printed wouldn't be worth enough to pay our $20~ trillion in debt.

Quote from: Baruch on October 28, 2016, 12:24:32 PM
Third party info ...

Evan McMullin in Utah, may decide the national election.  Third party Republican may defeat both Trump and Clinton.

Gary Johnson has lost 1/2 of his supporters in the past 2 months.  Looks like I will have to vote early and often ;-)

The idea the McMullin has a chance in hell is hyperbole.  It's the political version of "Shark Week".  MAYBE he could win Utah.  But with even Texas on the verge of flipping blue, six electoral votes are not realistically going to be enough to cause a tie.  And EVEN IF they were, Republicans wouldn't dare elect McMullin instead of Trump.  There would be literal killing in the streets.  They know full well that it would literally cause an armed revolt because Trump already has his loyal voters primed to revolt if Hillary wins.  If the election is ACTUALLY stolen from him it would lead to civil war, or pretty damned close.  While there may be some Republicans stupid enough to think they could get away with such a thing I highly doubt a majority of them are not going to realize that it would be the death of the Republican party and possibly the literal deaths of at least some of them.  This is a daydream.

Quote from: widdershins on October 28, 2016, 05:54:36 PMNo, I'm not nixxing my earlier stance.  Hillary IS the best candidate.  Stein and Johnson are neither one very bright, Trump has serious mental issues, the other guy is a Republican and I always, ALWAYS vote for "NOT the Republican".  My stance doesn't have to change to reach this conclusion.

It does if you say that voting third party is a good thing to do and later call it a moronic thing to do.  A reasonable, conscientious person would pick up on the discrepancy and admit to being wrong in the past.  Pretending that one's stance hasn't changed is the decidedly less accurate and less respectable way of dealing with that incongruity.

QuoteAnd for the record, I never said anything about any "protest vote" or "rejecting" any system.

That's why I quoted you directly.  So that when you say "It's about rejecting the corrupt system" in one post and then it's not about "'rejecting' any system" in the next, it's easy for people to recognize what you're doing.

If Widdershins waffles, is he from Belgium?  What is the sound of one flap, Jack?

Anyone who votes for either major candidate, isn't rejecting the current system, or even the status quo in policy ... they are willing dupes of campaign promises that can't be kept ... like most voters.

As far as taxes go ... I was just agent provocateur.  I know what every American wants ... a free lunch at someone else's expense, just like we have since Jamestown.  Nothing has ever happened, in any election, that actually decreased taxes (other than shuffling them) or made the tax code less complicated.  I will see a male unicorn sharing a pleasing glade with a virgin maiden, before I see anything else.

The absurdity of the current post-secondary education system, will come crashing down, or take the US with it in an attempt to maintain the subsidy to buggy whip manufacturers.

That article is complete and utter bullshit.  It's a thinly disguised "lesser of two evils" argument, because third parties are in such a better position than ever before.  The two leading candidates are so piss-poor awful that third parties on all sides are able to make gains up until now unheard of.

And there is no Perot set up to steal all the third party thunder.  All ethical people are disgusted with Clinton, all sane people are disgusted with Trump.  Actual third party candidates are able to break through the noise floor that usually suppresses them.

So rather than vote for what you believe in, you are supposed to "do your duty" and vote for someone you hate lest someone else you hate win.

The powers that be realize that in their attempt to ensure a Hillary victory they have alienated just about everyone, so now they need to lecture us about how much we need to fall in line.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 28, 2016, 09:47:31 PMAll ethical people are disgusted with Clinton

Why?

Quote from: Atheon on October 28, 2016, 09:51:42 PM
Why?

Even by third party and libertarian standards the pretentiousness of that was blanch inducing.

Quote from: Atheon on October 28, 2016, 09:51:42 PM
Why?

I don't believe that you actually need to ask that question.

True believers are known from a variety of 20th century ideological movements.  Projection of secular messiahs.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 28, 2016, 10:52:40 PM
I don't believe that you actually need to ask that question.

I know there have been a lot of BS accusations leveled against her, all of which fall to pieces under scrutiny.

So, I ask again: Why?

Desiring destruction for a greater longer good is a dangerous option.  One bad decision could end the world.

1,000 years ago, that would have have been more acdeptable,  today not so much.

Quote from: Atheon on October 28, 2016, 11:36:06 PM
I know there have been a lot of BS accusations leveled against her, all of which fall to pieces under scrutiny.

So, I ask again: Why?

Ah, I get it.  You are pretending that "Unethical" and "Illegal" are synonyms.  Even though she has crossed both those lines.  And you are pretending that "not convicted" is the same thing as "innocent."

Since no sane prosecutor would want to take the risk of filing charges against Clinton, therefore she's never done anything unethical.  Wow.

I still don't believe you need to ask "why" when someone says "all ethical people are disgusted with Clinton."

But let's apply your standard in both directions.  You don't want to do that.

What court of law has found Trump to be as bad as you say he is?

If I'm right, you're going to respond to that particular question by falsely accusing me of being a Trump supporter.

Perhaps that he threatens libel suits against almost the entire universe and never follows them up because he knows they are baseless?

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 29, 2016, 12:49:48 AM
Ah, I get it.  You are pretending that "Unethical" and "Illegal" are synonyms.

Nope. Never said or implied that.

Your inability to answer is duly noted.

It's always that case, isn't it? Ask right-wingers why they don't like Clinton, they answer "Are you serious?", and then refuse to answer. There's a reason for that. Hillary hasn't actually done anything wrong.

Since 1991, the Republicans have launched one BS accusation after another, nonstop, at the Clintons, and it continues to this day. A quarter of a century of hollow, baseless accusations, ranging from the stupid (Haircutgate) to the absurd (Vince Foster murder) to the downright outlandish (Hillary is a Satan-worshipping lesbian lizard person). After 25 years of lies and fail, why should ANYONE believe ANYTHING a Republican says about the Clintons? (Or anything, for that matter?)

The Republicans have had a rage-boner for the Clintons since day one, and there is no reason for it ... other than their last name, it seems. Maybe the combination of letters or sounds?

You may not be a Republican, but you have fallen for their narrative hook, line and sinker, and that should be an embarrassment.

As for Trump, I oppose him because of his proposed Supreme Court nominations, who would outlaw abortion. I oppose him because his win would validate the Republicans' Supreme Court delaying tactic. I oppose him for his idea of building a wall. I oppose him for the sexist, racist, and Islamophobic sentiments that he has expressed repeatedly. I oppose him because he pandered shamelessly to the Religious Right and chose one of their members as a VP. I oppose him for his global warming denialism. I oppose him for his dangerously simplistic and unnuanced view of international politics. I oppose him for his tendency to egg on his rabid followers to violence. I oppose him for his utter lack of political and government experience. I oppose him because he wants to repeal Obamacare. I oppose him because in the 30 years I've seen him, nothing he has said or done has convinced me he's not an egomanical narcissist.

It's worse, the Repubs have had a rage-boner against the CONCEPT of a Democratic President since 1992.  It has been "No Damn Way" ever since.

I had a dream the other night that Obama grew an Islamic-style beard just to make the Republicans froth at the mouth for his entertainment!

After the election, I hope...  LOL!

Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 12:42:35 AM
Desiring destruction for a greater longer good is a dangerous option.  One bad decision could end the world.

1,000 years ago, that would have have been more acdeptable,  today not so much.

New campaign slogan ...

End The World Now!  Why are you prejudiced against extinction?  Will have to pull your SJW membership card.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 04:59:31 AM
It's worse, the Repubs have had a rage-boner against the CONCEPT of a Democratic President since 1992.  It has been "No Damn Way" ever since.

I was the opposite ... no damn Republican President since 1992 ... then Bill the Sex Monster changed my mind.  I briefly was taken in by Obama in 2008 ... but sure enough, he turned out to be another CIA Trojan Horse ... though at least he isn't a trojan (condom) like Bill.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 12:56:05 AM
Perhaps that he threatens libel suits against almost the entire universe and never follows them up because he knows they are baseless?

What, you don't support the Trial Lawyer mafia?  Expect a subpoena in the morning!  If Trump sucks up all the Trial Lawyer activity, there won't be any available for others to file law suits.

Quote from: Atheon on October 29, 2016, 05:25:36 AM
I had a dream the other night that Obama grew an Islamic-style beard just to make the Republicans froth at the mouth for his entertainment!

Actually he should go back to Indonesia or Kenya where he belongs ;-)  Being bearded and Muslim are cool there.

Quote from: Atheon on October 29, 2016, 04:07:47 AMAs for Trump, I oppose him because of his proposed Supreme Court nominations, who would outlaw abortion. I oppose him because his win would validate the Republicans' Supreme Court delaying tactic. I oppose him for his idea of building a wall. I oppose him for the sexist, racist, and Islamophobic sentiments that he has expressed repeatedly. I oppose him because he pandered shamelessly to the Religious Right and chose one of their members as a VP. I oppose him for his global warming denialism. I oppose him for his dangerously simplistic and unnuanced view of international politics. I oppose him for his tendency to egg on his rabid followers to violence. I oppose him for his utter lack of political and government experience. I oppose him because he wants to repeal Obamacare. I oppose him because in the 30 years I've seen him, nothing he has said or done has convinced me he's not an egomanical narcissist.

Using your standard of proof, where is the court verdict that shows Trump supports all that?

All sane people oppose Trump, all ethical people oppose Clinton.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 29, 2016, 11:35:29 AM
Using your standard of proof, where is the court verdict that shows Trump supports all that?

All sane people oppose Trump, all ethical people oppose Clinton.

Trump's own words, day in and day out, convict him...

Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 11:41:01 AM
Trump's own words, day in and day out, convict him...

Can say the same for Shillary ... but it is legal to vote for the scum you most like, or least dislike.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 29, 2016, 11:35:29 AM
Using your standard of proof, where is the court verdict that shows Trump supports all that?

All sane people oppose Trump, all ethical people oppose Clinton.

Pretty sure he's one of those trolls being paid by Clinton to defend her online (just kidding... sorta). He claims Hillary has done nothing wrong, while she herself and those working for her campaign say she is deeply apologetic about using the private server. Hillary admits that she fucked up, but even in the face of that, Atheon continues saying that Hillary has never done anything wrong in her political life. He's a good little solider and loyal to the team. I don't think arguments like his have done much to help Hillary though. You have to be pretty darn brainwashed to accept his argument that Hillary has done nothing wrong in her political life, ever, period, because even Hillary herself and those working for her campaign are not silly enough to think people are going to buy into the idea that Hillary has never done anything wrong, ever. Atheon's argument can be debunked simply by quoting Hillary herself lol. I'm a Trudea voter and I think he's a massive piece of shit. Bernie Sanders is a piece of shit. Elizabeth Warren is a piece of shit. Gary Johnson is a piece of shit. They all are.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 29, 2016, 11:41:01 AM
Trump's own words, day in and day out, convict him...

His own words are a court verdict?

FaithIsFilth - a Trudeau supporter?  Well at least Canada is still an a potentially democratic country.  In the US, our system is too important to be left in the hands of the voters, unless we are willing to vote as told (as manipulated by pre-elections polls).

Logical voters to third party voters "Ok, son. It's going to come down to you eating either broccoli or brussel sprouts that you have to eat with your dinner, which do you want?"

Third party voters : "I want brownies and gummy bears and cookies! Nyaaaaaaaa!"

Logical voters : "that is not dinner food... "

Sent from your mom.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 30, 2016, 03:51:42 PM
His own words are a court verdict?

"Convict" as in the opinion of voters.  I didn't say "court", you did.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2016, 02:43:32 AM
"Convict" as in the opinion of voters.  I didn't say "court", you did.

There is a general pattern with some posters ... that if it isn't the result of a court conviction, then it isn't real (at least when it is about a candidate or official they support).  Since neither Hillary nor Trump have ever been convicted of anything (as far as I know), then they both must be as perfect at Jesus Christ.  Also voter opinion doesn't count, except theirs and people who already agree with them.

Quote from: Hydra009 on October 28, 2016, 07:07:32 PM
It does if you say that voting third party is a good thing to do and later call it a moronic thing to do.  A reasonable, conscientious person would pick up on the discrepancy and admit to being wrong in the past.  Pretending that one's stance hasn't changed is the decidedly less accurate and less respectable way of dealing with that incongruity.

If you bothered to read anything I actually said you would easily see that I was ALWAYS talking about voting for what I considered to be the "best candidate".  That has never changed.

Quote from: Hydra009 on October 28, 2016, 07:07:32 PM
That's why I quoted you directly.  So that when you say "It's about rejecting the corrupt system" in one post and then it's not about "'rejecting' any system" in the next, it's easy for people to recognize what you're doing.

You got me there.  I said one thing in a different post which doesn't match what I'm talking about in this post after a long and contentious discussion which went all over the place.  It happens.  It doesn't change the fact that I was ALWAYS talking about voting for the candidate I thought to be the best, regardless of political affiliation.  Hell, the thread title mentions "voting your heart".

Quote from: widdershins on October 31, 2016, 10:19:14 AM
If you bothered to read anything I actually said you would easily see that I was ALWAYS talking about voting for what I considered to be the "best candidate".  That has never changed.
You got me there.  I said one thing in a different post which doesn't match what I'm talking about in this post after a long and contentious discussion which went all over the place.  It happens.  It doesn't change the fact that I was ALWAYS talking about voting for the candidate I thought to be the best, regardless of political affiliation.  Hell, the thread title mentions "voting your heart".

How dare you try to be rational and thoughtful?  Shame on you.  People like you destroy all thoughtless partisan ranting!  ;)

Quote from: Cavebear on October 31, 2016, 02:43:32 AM
"Convict" as in the opinion of voters.  I didn't say "court", you did.

It was your standard of proof when I said that Hillary was unethical.

2016: Mountains, Mole Hills, Feigned Controversy

All the cases against her are bullshit, really, and reflect poorly the character of people who buy them rather than hers.

Is she a out of touch socially politician who is almost the personification of what people dislike about politicians? Certainly. But unethical? No more than the average Joe in Washington, and certainly no more than any of her direct competition.

The only major difference between her and her opposition is her competence.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 31, 2016, 03:25:32 PM
It was your standard of proof when I said that Hillary was unethical.

Hillary is unethical. So is most of the human race. Hillary is way more ethical than Trump, though. And she also knows how taxes work, unlike Gary Johnson. And she isn't a complete space cadet like Jill Stein.

So by passively letting a vote for Trump be unopposed, you are, in a way, unethical.

Pickel ... so you have claimed.  But since you know neither personally, you are talking complete nonsense like every other partisan who posts here.

I don't give a shit for ethics in politics; it does not exist.  So, I go with the candidate that seems to match up best with my thoughts.  But I do so knowing that no candidate will ever match up with much of what I think.  And all politicians are driven by what suits them best and gets them the 'most' of whatever it is they want.  In this chamber of horrors of an election, I must vote for HRC.  I have no other choice.

Quote from: Baruch on October 31, 2016, 07:10:57 PM
Pickel ... so you have claimed.  But since you know neither personally, you are talking complete nonsense like every other partisan who posts here.

Says the person that is....
well...
you.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on October 31, 2016, 10:28:38 PM
Says the person that is....
well...
you.

I wouldn't want to be anyone else ... same as you.  I don't know the candidates personally either, just how to be an agent provocateur ... same as you.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on October 31, 2016, 05:19:20 PM
Hillary is unethical. So is most of the human race. Hillary is way more ethical than Trump, though. And she also knows how taxes work, unlike Gary Johnson. And she isn't a complete space cadet like Jill Stein.

So by passively letting a vote for Trump be unopposed, you are, in a way, unethical.

Eh, no.

It is the difference between a psychopath and a psychotic.

If you see someone go out of their way to kill a dog that is barking at them, there are three choices.  First, they are a police officer.  Second, they  are psychopathic.  Third, they are psychotic.  The second two options are actually different.

The psychopath has no morals at all, and kills the dog on the grounds that "it was annoying me so why not."  They psychotic is not connected to reality and could believe "the dog was casting an evil spell on me" or something equally absurd.

Any argument that the psychopath is better than the psychotic falls on deaf ears here, and any attempt to say "but if you don't vote for the psychopath then you are passively voting for the psychotic" is treated as the absurd trash that it is.

And Hillary's lack of ethics runs far deeper than that of a normal person or even a normal politician.

Quote from: Shiranu on October 31, 2016, 04:57:43 PM
2016: Mountains, Mole Hills, Feigned Controversy

All the cases against her are bullshit, really, and reflect poorly the character of people who buy them rather than hers.

Is she a out of touch socially politician who is almost the personification of what people dislike about politicians? Certainly. But unethical? No more than the average Joe in Washington, and certainly no more than any of her direct competition.

The only major difference between her and her opposition is her competence.

You have no issue with her cheating in debates and getting questions beforehand while her competition doesn't? What if Mitt Romney got the questions beforehand, giving him that extra edge over Obama who doesn't get the questions beforehand? That wouldn't even be worth bringing up? Would that be feigned controversy? Would people be idiots then for complaining about Romney cheating in the debates and taking advantage of a rigged system over the first black nominee in American history? Something tells me you would bring the cheating up, rather than just accepting it and considering anyone who takes issue with it to be an idiot.

They're both psychopaths. One is both psychotic and in addition to that, he's also a psychopath.

"And Hillary's lack of ethics runs far deeper than that of a normal person or even a normal politician."

and what is your alternative? Gary Johnson? someone that can barely name 1 foreign leader and doesn't understand how taxes work?
Or Jill Stein, psuedoscience extrodinaire?
Both of which will not be elected in any way shape or form? They will get, at most, 15% of the votes.
Or are you actually voting Trump?

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 01, 2016, 02:04:51 PM
You have no issue with her cheating in debates and getting questions beforehand while her competition doesn't? What if Mitt Romney got the questions beforehand, giving him that extra edge over Obama who doesn't get the questions beforehand? That wouldn't even be worth bringing up? Would that be feigned controversy? Would people be idiots then for complaining about Romney cheating in the debates and taking advantage of a rigged system over the first black nominee in American history? Something tells me you would bring the cheating up, rather than just accepting it and considering anyone who takes issue with it to be an idiot.

The best example is something she had nothing to do with.

Nice.

I can't help but think that you people act like politics is a gentleman's game have not had much political experience or paid much attention to it before.

Then again, I'm from LBJ's neck of the woods and go to the same university as him... so maybe it's just in our cultural DNA to value pragmatism and ruthlessness in politics.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 01, 2016, 02:24:15 PM
The best example is something she had nothing to do with.

Nice.

I can't help but think that you people act like politics is a gentleman's game have not had much political experience or paid much attention to it before.

Then again, I'm from LBJ's neck of the woods and go to the same university as him... so maybe it's just in our cultural DNA to value pragmatism and ruthlessness in politics.

She had nothing to do with? Does the same apply for cops who stand by their fellow officers after they shoot someone in the back running away? Hillary didn't try to prevent Donna Brazille from becoming DNC chair. Hillary has not called for Donna Brazille to be removed as DNC chair. She hired Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to her campaign after she had to step down as DNC chair for rigging it against Bernie. That wasn't the best example I could come up with either. There are countless other issues that have been brought up and I didn't really want to bore people and repeat the other stuff I've posted, so I went with something that I don't think has really been talked about on here yet. If rigged debates are fine, then what's the problem with a completely rigged election? May as well go all the way. Democracy is overrated anyways.

Because debates are borderline meaningless. How good you do doesn't effect much, it's not royally fucking up that matters. Rigging the debates would be making it where only one party has incriminating questions and "made to make you look stupid" ones, not having a leg up on what will be asked.

And I think you might understand that elections have a bit more relevance than debates, hence why you wouldn't go all the way. You drink alcohol? Well, just go do crack cocaine. You masturbate? Go have a gay orgy in Arabia.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 01, 2016, 02:13:50 PM
They're both psychopaths. One is both psychotic and in addition to that, he's also a psychopath.

"And Hillary's lack of ethics runs far deeper than that of a normal person or even a normal politician."

and what is your alternative? Gary Johnson? someone that can barely name 1 foreign leader and doesn't understand how taxes work?
Or Jill Stein, psuedoscience extrodinaire?
Both of which will not be elected in any way shape or form? They will get, at most, 15% of the votes.
Or are you actually voting Trump?

I am voting third party, so by your standard I'm voting Trump and by Republican standards I'm voting for Hillary.

My condolences.

No. By my standards, you're burying your head in the sand and refusing to weigh out which of the two front runners you is the better choice. You want cookies and candy and gummy bears for dinner, when they're actually only serving broccoli and brussel sprouts. You're lying to yourself about the menu.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

When both are thoroughly awful, there is no real question of "which one is better".  Cyanide or Arsenic?  Eaten by a lion versus eaten by a crocodile?  Hitler or Stalin?  Beheading or hanging (without reprieve)?

Would you believe there are people who actually would say there's a lesser evil in "Hitler or Stalin"?

Yeah. Because being eaten by a predatory animal, is the exact same thing as having two choices you don't like as president. :rolleyes:

And no that both aren't anywhere near as bad as Hitler or Stalin.

Time to be a an adult and face reality


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 01, 2016, 05:24:15 PM
I am voting third party, so by your standard I'm voting Trump and by Republican standards I'm voting for Hillary.

Both parties would prefer voting like in Iraq under Saddam.  Voting is mandatory, and there is only one name on the ballot ;-)

FaithIsFlith ....

Here is the latest ... Huma was running everything, earlier, thru her husband's web site ... so that sever is also compromised, and every non-government-allowed admin there who could look at it (unclassified?  natch).  The Men In Black will be busy with their pen-like flash thingy.

http://truepundit.com/fbi-huma-once-shared-a-server-with-dog-groomer/

Podesta was caught earlier leaving a message ... "to delete all those emails".  Unfortunately or not, it isn't that easy when you are running the most incompetent communications function in history.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000822867536/3f5a00acf72df93528b6bb7cd0a4fd0c.jpeg)

much rebelylus
very third party
wow

And on that note, I'm backing out. It's obvious you're beyond changing your mind and sticking to voting for someone that is effective for this country as just sitting at home watching softcore pornography

I have to ask; what is more ethical voting for Johnson than Hillary? I am assuming you voted based on your platform to the guy who most closely resembles it. I want to see the workings on that.

Johnson is an incompetent idiot with not the slightest clue on how economics work, and apparently little to zero grasp of foreign affairs. He now identifies as an Independent but was a member of the Republican party and was very heavily involved in their, "We will not approve anything anyone else proposes" tactics. He is heavy proponent of privatized schooling which, as Americans, we should have learned our lesson by now that anything important should NOT be put in the hands of people who only care about money. He did not combat private prisons, one of the greatest ethical crisis's taking place in the United States today. His obstructionist views twice almost lead to the complete government shutdown of New Mexico.

He wants to get rid of student debt by magic. He isn't sure the Department of Education and other Departments actually have any worth. He is just a fucking creep... which shouldn't be an issue per se but we don't live in utopia.

You are saying we are better off with an incompetent obstructionist than someone who gets some good & some bad done but will keep the government working. If we want to continue the "holy homonculi of hyperbole" game started that you played with the Hitler comparisons, then Gary Johnson getting the presidency of one of the most powerful nations in the world is like giving a 15 year old pscyopath a gun, a bag of cocaine, PCP, and enabling god mode and unlimited ammo then putting him in the middle of a city and telling him to have fun.

That is hardly an ethical choice.

Shiranu ... Hillary can be a genius, but her organization is filled with doofus.  Or that is what Hitler said ... all his generals were incompetent compared to his rank (corporal).  I already addressed my opo on student debt ... nobody will take my advice.

Yes, Johnson fits on average better than Hillary or Trump ... not that I believe anyone's platform.  Kind of like smelling what is cooking in the kitchen before you taste it.  If you want smart, put down Noam Chomsky for your write-in.

So many of your want more of that Libya/Syria competence ... but none of you are volunteering into uniform yet?  Even Obomber tends to hit the target he is aiming at.  The folks I work with are itching to throw away their lives for the Clinton Foundation.

"I saw Huffington post quote something that Bernie Sanders said about an oligarchy or something and now I know about politics"

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 01, 2016, 06:21:40 PMTime to be a an adult and face reality

You want reality?  I live in California.  No matter how I vote, California is going for the Turd Sandwich.  I could vote Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich or third party, it doesn't matter.  The Turd Sandwich is going to win California.  All your false-morality screeds about how I must vote for the right psychopath or the wrong psychopath will get into office fail at that reality.

And suppose I lived in Texas.  The Giant Douche is going to win Texas no matter how I vote.  That's reality contradicting the fantasy land of that pseudo-moral article telling us that we have to grow up and choose between Hitler or Stalin.

Do you live in a swing state?  If that rubbish article actually was moral in the first place, then it would still only apply in those swing states.  Most states are either definitely going for the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich.  That's reality.  Try to face the reality instead of drinking the Cool-Ade of "ethicists" who are trying to prop up the worst choice the two party system has given us in many decades.

Seems like you really thought out a good argument to justify not wanting to think about the two options

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Nothing I've written there is new.  The effectiveness of voting has been known for a long time.

Idealists can't be dissuaded from their ideals, even as the do the lemming dance over the cliff.  If my one vote would decide the survival or extinction of the universe ... I would seriously debate myself regarding the sex maniac in chief and his wife.  Been there for 8 years already.  Dick Cheney was never President (snicker) ... so he is technically eligible.  At least he is less of a grifting douche than the Clinton crime family.  One of his daughters is even gay ... so that should bring out the pathetic Left.  One can see right thru this ... the point of defending the two party screw ... is because some people also want that to be followed by a D screw, not an R screw, in spite of all their protestations to the contrary.  Just like sports fans that cheer for the losing home team, decade after decade.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 02, 2016, 12:43:59 AM
Nothing I've written there is new.  The effectiveness of voting has been known for a long time.

Most people will not notice your satire.  Voting is very ineffective for the individual, unless you are old Mayor Daley, who owes a favor to old Joe Kennedy.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 02, 2016, 12:43:59 AM
Nothing I've written there is new.  The effectiveness of voting has been known for a long time.

I guess I'm just confused by your contradictory logic.

Quote from: Baruch on November 02, 2016, 12:52:18 AM
Most people will not notice your satire.  Voting is very ineffective for the individual, unless you are old Mayor Daley, who owes a favor to old Joe Kennedy.

I noticed the "satire". That is why I said what I said.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 02, 2016, 01:50:08 AM
I noticed the "satire". That is why I said what I said.

Sometimes even I have to use postmodern ouija board analysis on Jason's posts ;-)

Yes, Jason is right in that we do not individually vote for the president.  We vote for an electoral college rep. can do that for us.  But in most cases, that rep. can vote anyway he/she wants to.  The electoral sucks.  We do not live in a democracy, but a republic and hence we vote for representatives.  I live in CA, and this year the main reason I voted for HRC is because Trump is such a dick-wad and dangerous person; but actually it was to vote for the 17 propositions on the ballet and the local offices. 

Man, the Republican media machine really works its magic.  Pretty much all the shit about Hillary is made up, folks.  Her and Bill haven't killed anyone.  That's made up.  She did not vamp out in Benghazi and personally kill six US citizens, nor did she plan the attack, nor did she know it was going to happen and just not care.  She had no part in that at all and all the evidence that we knew something was going down in advance shows a failure in our system, not in one individual personally.  And the email thing?  She did a dumb thing.  That's it, the end.  People keep wanting to make all these other arguments about how it was criminal, but the reality is that she did a dumb thing, the end.  Do you think she WANTED her emails to be hacked?  Wikileaks is doing her a lot of favors right now, that is true...wait a minute, NO IT'S NOT!  Do you think she WANTED to give out state secrets?  Realistically, she didn't communicate many state secrets.  What was it, a little over 100 classified emails out of THIRTY THOUSAND?  Her server was hardly a hub of state secrets.  But assuming she was dealing with classified information all the time, did she WANT that in enemy hands?  Of course not!  Did she INTEND to get hacked?  Did she realize it was a real possibility and just not care?  Of course not!

Now, did she make a little money on the side in shady deals?  Is she a politician?  Ever heard of Citizens United?  They ALL make a little (or a lot) on the side in shady deals!  Does she understand what it's like to be poor?  Hell no!  Is she a liar?  Again, is she a politician?  In America we actually DEMAND that our politicians lie to us, as stupid as that sounds.  When Biden was asked whether he would let his family take a train with a given threat at the time he did a stupid thing and he told the truth.  What a moron!  It blew up in his face and we had something strange happen, our vice president took public transportation.  I don't really know if it counts as a vote of confidence for trains, though.  I've never been on one, but I imagine they aren't normally secured by Secret Service.  As Americans if our politicians tell us the truth instead of what we want to hear they get ROASTED for it.  And that, my friends, is why Trump is so popular.  He doesn't give a fuck about the truth!  It's ALL ABOUT what you want to hear with him!  And, of course, what he wants his rabid followers to hear.

Anyway, as far as I can tell all this shit about Hillary being the devil is pretty much either made up or true of all politicians.  It's hyperbole.  Did she prevent Benghazi?  No, but asking that is like Trump asking why she didn't fix all the world's problems during the 30 years she spent in politics.  Um, probably because she's one cog in a very big machine.  I'm to the point now where when something comes up about her I simply doubt its validity first and I'll look into it later if it becomes big news.

Nothing is going to change until people are willing to vote for a candidate who might do the most good, rather than "strategically" voting for the lesser of two evils. If the majority of people want to do the latter, great: see you in 2020.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 02, 2016, 11:54:23 AM
Nothing is going to change until people are willing to vote for a candidate who might do the most good, rather than "strategically" voting for the lesser of two evils. If the majority of people want to do the latter, great: see you in 2020.

Name a candidate on either major or minor party who isn't a lesser of x evils and instead good, and I will give them serious consideration.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 02, 2016, 11:54:23 AM
Nothing is going to change until people are willing to vote for a candidate who might do the most good, rather than "strategically" voting for the lesser of two evils. If the majority of people want to do the latter, great: see you in 2020.

That will never be an available option until we vote in a better house and Senate

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Shiranu on November 02, 2016, 12:11:26 PM
Name a candidate on either major or minor party who isn't a lesser of x evils and instead good, and I will give them serious consideration.

Build your own political party ... to avoid party corruption (self contradictory, I know).  Oh when the saints, oh when the saints, oh when the saints go marching' in ...

Party of Holy Atheists ... might not be taken at the trademark office yet ;-)

Quote from: Shiranu on November 02, 2016, 12:11:26 PM
Name a candidate on either major or minor party who isn't a lesser of x evils and instead good, and I will give them serious consideration.

Can't, they've been driven off the stage by strategic voters already. :lol:

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 02, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Can't, they've been driven off the stage by strategic voters already. :lol:

Such as?

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 02, 2016, 11:54:23 AM
Nothing is going to change until people are willing to vote for a candidate who might do the most good, rather than "strategically" voting for the lesser of two evils. If the majority of people want to do the latter, great: see you in 2020.

The way I see this election cycle it's the lesser of 5 evils.  I looked at the other guys.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 02, 2016, 12:40:02 PM
That will never be an available option until we vote in a better house and Senate

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I should also clarify that I also am implying that third party candidates are included in the "lesser of the evils" competition. They suck really bad too.

Speaking of which, let's talk about Jill Stein for a second (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/10/jill-stein-wants-national-conversation-on-oppressive-comedians/)

Quote from: Mike Cl on November 02, 2016, 09:11:03 AM
Yes, Jason is right in that we do not individually vote for the president.  We vote for an electoral college rep. can do that for us.  But in most cases, that rep. can vote anyway he/she wants to.  The electoral sucks.  We do not live in a democracy, but a republic and hence we vote for representatives.  I live in CA, and this year the main reason I voted for HRC is because Trump is such a dick-wad and dangerous person; but actually it was to vote for the 17 propositions on the ballet and the local offices. 

Actually, that's not the reason I say our vote is ineffective.  As I've pointed out, I live in California and my vote will not change that California is going for the Turd Sandwich instead of the Giant Douche.  It's an inevitable outcome.  There's no point in giving my vote to either the Turd Sandwich or the Giant Douche because California is going for the Turd Sandwich.  My vote will not have "negligible effect" it will have "no effect."

And suppose I lived in Texas.  My vote wouldn't change the outcome there either.  No matter how I vote, the Giant Douche will win Texas.  My vote would not have "negligible effect" it would have "no effect".

That's reality.  In most states your vote has absolutely no effect on the outcome.

There are ways in which your vote can count, but they all rely on abandoning the two party vote.  Even then you won't change the outcome, but you can change the ancillary effects.  Third parties struggle to maintain ballot access.  They have to garner a certain percentage of the vote to keep ballot access.  That percentage isn't terribly high, but in a first-past-the-post system like we have, it is still a difficult hurdle.  In those cases every vote does count.

Also major parties do look at those who are willing to look beyond the facade.  They then make a platform plank to placate those voters (as if they actually paid attention to their platform) so they can reabsorb those voters, because the major parties have the belief that the votes belong to the major parties as some sort of divine inheritance.  These ethicists should have just summed up their article with "because God said so" when trying to convince people that they must grow up and choose between the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich.

If a third party steals votes often enough and consistently enough, it actually steers the major party ever so slightly to reclaim the stolen votes.  Voting for Hillary changes nothing.  Voting for Stein has the potential to eventually steer the Democratic Party to one more acceptable to Stein voters.  The same goes for voting for Darrell Castle and the Republican Party.  Of course it doesn't really apply to the Libertarian Party as our platform is antithetical to both and would require major changes in either for it to happen.  Besides, the Libertarian Party already does a great job of shooting itself in the foot on a regular basis.

But wait, there's more.  Who remembers the 2008 election?  I remember there was a problem in Texas.  Both major parties forgot to file on time to be on the ballot, leaving only the worst candidate ever put forward on the LP ticket as the only candidate on the ticket.  The state went ahead to print the ballot with both McCain and Obama on it, and Bob Barr actually did the right thing and sued under "force Texas to obey Texas law."  As it turns out, Obama won so Texas electoral votes didn't change the outcome, but if Barr had won the suit it would have ensured that Obama wins the general election while Barr wins Texas.

Why didn't the Democrats support Barr's suit?  Because they know to keep the game with just two players, even if it hurts them in the short run.  A Barr victory in Texas would have helped in the short run and hurt in the long run.

Besides, the Texas Secretary of State quickly "found" their ballot applications, dated appropriately before the deadline, with the ink still wet.  Those "on time" applications were the reason why Texas won the lawsuit against Bob Barr.  As an aside, just curious, do you think the Texas Secretary of State would have been as obliging had McCain and Obama been on time but Barr been late?

So no, when it comes to deciding anything in the short term, your vote really honestly has no effect.  In the long term, it has an effect if you vote third party.  The only exception to this is if you live in a swing state, and it really is a true swing state instead of "leading by a mere 2%" swing state.  Very few states are like that.  Most of the so called swing states are one where a major party candidate has a weak lead instead of a strong lead.  Very few are actual toss-ups.

Now if you live in one of those states, then it might possibly matter if you choose between the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich.  But not in California, not in Texas, not in most states.  Far better to try to steer the major parties in the long run by withholding their your vote from them.

But what if everyone did this at once?  Well, then we'd actually get a good candidate for a change.

I have to agree.  Voting for either major party, is a vote for the status quo .. not for change.  That is just because of where they are at politically ... Right and Far Right.  Thanks Jason, you gave me another good reason to vote they way I will tomorrow.  And no, I don't think Bernie or his supporters will make a fart's worth of difference in the Hillary Hurricane, if she is elected.  They are gullible, just like most minority voters.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 02, 2016, 06:59:41 PM
Actually, that's not the reason I say our vote is ineffective.  As I've pointed out, I live in California and my vote will not change that California is going for the Turd Sandwich instead of the Giant Douche.  It's an inevitable outcome.  There's no point in giving my vote to either the Turd Sandwich or the Giant Douche because California is going for the Turd Sandwich.  My vote will not have "negligible effect" it will have "no effect."

And suppose I lived in Texas.  My vote wouldn't change the outcome there either.  No matter how I vote, the Giant Douche will win Texas.  My vote would not have "negligible effect" it would have "no effect".

That's reality.  In most states your vote has absolutely no effect on the outcome.

There are ways in which your vote can count, but they all rely on abandoning the two party vote.  Even then you won't change the outcome, but you can change the ancillary effects.  Third parties struggle to maintain ballot access.  They have to garner a certain percentage of the vote to keep ballot access.  That percentage isn't terribly high, but in a first-past-the-post system like we have, it is still a difficult hurdle.  In those cases every vote does count.

Also major parties do look at those who are willing to look beyond the facade.  They then make a platform plank to placate those voters (as if they actually paid attention to their platform) so they can reabsorb those voters, because the major parties have the belief that the votes belong to the major parties as some sort of divine inheritance.  These ethicists should have just summed up their article with "because God said so" when trying to convince people that they must grow up and choose between the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich.

If a third party steals votes often enough and consistently enough, it actually steers the major party ever so slightly to reclaim the stolen votes.  Voting for Hillary changes nothing.  Voting for Stein has the potential to eventually steer the Democratic Party to one more acceptable to Stein voters.  The same goes for voting for Darrell Castle and the Republican Party.  Of course it doesn't really apply to the Libertarian Party as our platform is antithetical to both and would require major changes in either for it to happen.  Besides, the Libertarian Party already does a great job of shooting itself in the foot on a regular basis.

But wait, there's more.  Who remembers the 2008 election?  I remember there was a problem in Texas.  Both major parties forgot to file on time to be on the ballot, leaving only the worst candidate ever put forward on the LP ticket as the only candidate on the ticket.  The state went ahead to print the ballot with both McCain and Obama on it, and Bob Barr actually did the right thing and sued under "force Texas to obey Texas law."  As it turns out, Obama won so Texas electoral votes didn't change the outcome, but if Barr had won the suit it would have ensured that Obama wins the general election while Barr wins Texas.

Why didn't the Democrats support Barr's suit?  Because they know to keep the game with just two players, even if it hurts them in the short run.  A Barr victory in Texas would have helped in the short run and hurt in the long run.

Besides, the Texas Secretary of State quickly "found" their ballot applications, dated appropriately before the deadline, with the ink still wet.  Those "on time" applications were the reason why Texas won the lawsuit against Bob Barr.  As an aside, just curious, do you think the Texas Secretary of State would have been as obliging had McCain and Obama been on time but Barr been late?

So no, when it comes to deciding anything in the short term, your vote really honestly has no effect.  In the long term, it has an effect if you vote third party.  The only exception to this is if you live in a swing state, and it really is a true swing state instead of "leading by a mere 2%" swing state.  Very few states are like that.  Most of the so called swing states are one where a major party candidate has a weak lead instead of a strong lead.  Very few are actual toss-ups.

Now if you live in one of those states, then it might possibly matter if you choose between the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich.  But not in California, not in Texas, not in most states.  Far better to try to steer the major parties in the long run by withholding their your vote from them.

But what if everyone did this at once?  Well, then we'd actually get a good candidate for a change.

And again, that is all hunky dory if our actions didn't have reactions, but they do. The third party vote put it's own arrogance ahead of it's brain and got Bush elected. The third party shifted the Republican party further to the right from within, and thus the Democrats as well. So no, you are entirely right... the third party is great at making changes; Bush was a huge change and the tea party were a radical shift as well. But that is not the change I am really looking for.

You try to pour water on the fire, but all you have done is add gasoline. Why should the average voter have any trust in what you have to say when you have to really dig deep to find a third party candidate who has the slightest clue about... anything... and their tract record is one of harm rather than good? It's all just, "My shit doesn't stink! Why don't you eat MY turd sandwich instead... it is relished with self-righteousness! Mmm mmm!" and no real depth.'

Dare I say it and sound the conservative, but a stable government is simply a more ethical and logical choice than an unstable one third parties bring.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 02, 2016, 07:58:59 PMAnd again, that is all hunky dory if our actions didn't have reactions, but they do.

What reaction?  If I vote for Hillary or if I vote for Trump or if I vote for Johnson, California will go for Hillary.  You assume there will be a reaction, but there is no evidence that there will be a reaction.  Are you honestly saying that California is a swing state?

Quote from: Shiranu on November 02, 2016, 07:58:59 PMThe third party vote put it's own arrogance ahead of it's brain and got Bush elected.

The old and fallacious "Nader cost Gore the election."  Because, after all, the Nader votes actually belonged to Gore and those selfish Nader voters didn't give Gore his property.  This is the same Gore who couldn't carry his home state, but could carry his home state in a state-wide Senate race so don't say "oh but that is a red state."

Quote from: Shiranu on November 02, 2016, 07:58:59 PMYou try to pour water on the fire, but all you have done is add gasoline.

So you are saying that California is a swing state?

Quote from: Shiranu on November 02, 2016, 07:58:59 PMWhy should the average voter have any trust in what you have to say when you have to really dig deep to find a third party candidate who has the slightest clue about... anything... and their tract record is one of harm rather than good? It's all just, "My shit doesn't stink! Why don't you eat MY turd sandwich instead... it is relished with self-righteousness! Mmm mmm!" and no real depth.'

You know what would be even more interesting?  If there was a third party ticket that had more executive experience than both the major party tickets combined.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 02, 2016, 07:58:59 PMDare I say it and sound the conservative, but a stable government is simply a more ethical and logical choice than an unstable one third parties bring.

So if I, in California, vote third party, it will destabilize our government?

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on October 31, 2016, 03:25:32 PM
It was your standard of proof when I said that Hillary was unethical.

In that case, you obviously misinterpreted what I said.  Clinton is the only ethical and competent choice and Trump is one of those vile horror movie monsters arising from the gassy swamp to ruin normal life.  LOL!

(https://i.imgur.com/2EBhN65.jpg)

That is about right about the Repubs. 

Jason ... our so called rationalists, are so committed to their irrational political partisanship ;-))

Aiee ... even before I vote, I regret my vote, I don't have to wait several years into a Gary Johnson administration.  Check into Jill Stein's VP candidate, I bet Ajamu Baraka knows where Aleppo is, even if Jill Stein doesn't!

The Libertarian VP candidate scandal ... the party I am voting for later today, burns my eyes out more than Trump's groping "big" hands ...

Bill Weld, the VP candidate, has been revealed (because nobody gave a damn before, he wasn't hiding it, unlike the Clintons) that he not only plans on voting for Hillary, but that he is a scion of a very blue blood New England family, and is an actual MEMBER of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Has the CIA gotten one of their replicants onto every ticket?  Is ever VP candidate a shadow President in waiting?  This guy's bonifides reads like The Kissinger himself!

Please ignore the Presidential candidate, only pay attention to the VP candidate, that is the actual President you are voting on ... aiee

The email scandal has reached a point where judicious oversight crosses a line and becomes driven solely by  anger, frustration, and obsession.  This appeals to the baser aspects of human character, and hardly testifies to the finer qualities of the human condition.

Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2016, 07:02:37 AM
The email scandal has reached a point where judicious oversight crosses a line and becomes driven solely by  anger, frustration, and obsession.  This appeals to the baser aspects of human character, and hardly testifies to the finer qualities of the human condition.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting the email thing is no longer important.  True, Clinton would not have a private server as President and the whole bad habit goes away.  If so, I tend to agree.  While Trump would carry in and continue all his bad habits and multiple them...

All I can say is that it doesn't seem that important.  I'm not a fan of Hillary at all, but this still seems like it's being driven by ulterior motives.  I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem that important.  Like Atheon pointed out in some other thread, "Except, they are not investigating Clinton.  They are investigating Weiner."

But I don't believe that's what the coverage is about.  It's about Clinton.  Weiner is little more than a convenient vehicle to destroy Clinton.  If it was about Weiner, they wouldn't be making it about Clinton.

Quote from: SGOS on November 03, 2016, 08:11:26 AM
All I can say is that it doesn't seem that important.  I'm not a fan of Hillary at all, but this still seems like it's being driven by ulterior motives.  I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem that important.  Like Atheon pointed out in some other thread, "Except, they are not investigating Clinton.  They are investigating Weiner."

But I don't believe that's what the coverage is about.  It's about Clinton.  Weiner is little more than a convenient vehicle to destroy Clinton.  If it was about Weiner, they wouldn't be making it about Clinton.

Everything remotely connected to a Presidential candidate is about the candidate.  Did Carter's brother Billy matter to a Carter presidency?  Of course not.  Except it did.  If Reagan's son had come out of the closet during the 1980 campaign, Reagan would have lost. 

Half the voters are stupider than average, and they decide how to vote for stupid reasons.  What, did you think stupid people make smart choices?  LOL!

Quote from: widdershins on November 02, 2016, 11:05:07 AM
Her and Bill haven't killed anyone.  That's made up.

How could you possibly know that? Instead, I think you mean "we don't know that Hillary and Bill have killed anyone". You are making a positive claim that can not be backed up. Let's take Assange's source who was gunned down in the street, for example. This is unsolved. If they had discovered evidence showing that his wife shot and killed him or something like that, then yeah, you could reasonably make the claim that Hillary had nothing to do with it. Right now, you have nothing at all to back up your claim. If an FBI snitch, who happened to be a mafia member or gang member was found killed, would you be claiming that the mafia or gang had nothing to do with it? Probably not. My guess is that you would not try to make the claim that they absolutely had nothing to do with it, just because it couldn't be proven that they did it. Instead, you would probably be saying something more along the lines of "Well, the evidence isn't there, so you can't put these people away for any role in the crime". That's quite a bit different than "they did nothing". If you are going to make such claims, you have to back them up, and you simply can not do that when it comes to this claim of yours in particular. I don't know what happened, but in Hillary's defense, when you leak stuff like he did from inside the campaign, you really are asking to die. He knew what he was getting himself into.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 01:34:57 AM
In that case, you obviously misinterpreted what I said.  Clinton is the only ethical and competent choice and Trump is one of those vile horror movie monsters arising from the gassy swamp to ruin normal life.  LOL!

Clinton is ethical?  Oh boy.  Look, just because Trump is the epitome of everything that is wrong with culture in the US doesn't magically miraculously transform Hillary into anything better than the epitome of everything wrong with politics in the US.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 03, 2016, 01:40:27 PM
Clinton is ethical?  Oh boy.  Look, just because Trump is the epitome of everything that is wrong with culture in the US doesn't magically miraculously transform Hillary into anything better than the epitome of everything wrong with politics in the US.

There is a difference in all things.  I never said Clinton was Hunny Bunny, Obama or Bill or Kennedy.  But Trump is pond scum.

And we have a choice between sneaky and competent vs petty dictator, incompetent, and vile...  And don't ask which is which.  You know.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 02:37:46 PM
There is a difference in all things.  I never said Clinton was Hunny Bunny, Obama or Bill or Kennedy.  But Trump is pond scum.

And we have a choice between sneaky and competent vs petty dictator, incompetent, and vile...  And don't ask which is which.  You know.

You said she is ethical.

You can say she is better than Trump without absurd posturing about how she has ever had anything even remotely resembling having a conscience.

You can say Trump is a monster without having to lie about how Hillary isn't.

You said she is ethical.  Good grief.

We have a choice between a Psychopath and a Psychotic.  You can say the Psychotic is Psychotic without having to say the Psychopath isn't a Psychopath.  You don't have to lie about how good she is when saying she's better than Trump.  She's still evil, vile, and awful even if she is better than Trump.

Or are you so embarrassed that you support someone so evil (because the alternative is worse) that you will actually try to pretend that she is somehow actually secretly good deep down inside where she hides it so well that only you can see it?

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 03, 2016, 03:13:54 PM
You said she is ethical.

You can say she is better than Trump without absurd posturing about how she has ever had anything even remotely resembling having a conscience.

You can say Trump is a monster without having to lie about how Hillary isn't.

You said she is ethical.  Good grief.

We have a choice between a Psychopath and a Psychotic.  You can say the Psychotic is Psychotic without having to say the Psychopath isn't a Psychopath.  You don't have to lie about how good she is when saying she's better than Trump.  She's still evil, vile, and awful even if she is better than Trump.

Or are you so embarrassed that you support someone so evil (because the alternative is worse) that you will actually try to pretend that she is somehow actually secretly good deep down inside where she hides it so well that only you can see it?

Let's trade facts rather than impressions...

I say that Trump is incompetent because the has no experience in international relations.  There is more to world leadership than making money deals.  Trump does yet show any understanding of that..

I say Trump is "vile" because he is a mysoginist, groper, who thinks nothing of running into the dressing rooms of teen women at beauty contests "because he can".  And because  he thinks he can grab women's genitals because they have to let him get away with it sometimes in fear of their careers.

I say he is psychotic because he has no sense of truth, changing it day-to day.  No unfactual statement bothers him in any degree.    I can give you a dozen unfactual statements he has made if you want to be bludgeoned by them.  And that wouldn't be the half of them.

Mostly, I say he is psychotic because he believes the stuff he makes up as he goes are true BECAUSE HE SAYS THEM!

I say Trump is unethical because he lies about everything in his life.  He lied about giving money to the veterans.  He lies about giving money to charities (his foundation does with other people's money).  He even lies about giving money to his own campaign.  They are LOANS which he will either get back whole or take them off his taxes!  He wrote off OTHER PEOPLES losses on his own taxes!

Now lets see about Clinton.  She used a private server for convenience.  That must be psychotic right?  Well, no, she was just doing what the Republicans before her did. 

She has both domestic and international governmental experience.  She was in the White House asan active partner to a President, A Senator who worked across the aisle with Repub Senators to get a few bills passed.  Then was Secretary of State.  So it seems she has some experience.

Ethics must be your problem, then.   She gave some speeches for money while out of office.  So did the Bushes.

Clinton showed her tax forms.  That MUST be some unethical trick for sure.

She met with someone who gave money to the Clinton Foundation who had been giving money to it for years before.  And it was someone the Secretary of State SHOULD meet with.

Those things don't even come close to similar.  So what is your REAL problem with her.  Let's hear the truth of what you think.  It is either going to be conspiratorial or laughable.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 03, 2016, 01:40:27 PM
Clinton is ethical?  Oh boy.  Look, just because Trump is the epitome of everything that is wrong with culture in the US doesn't magically miraculously transform Hillary into anything better than the epitome of everything wrong with politics in the US.

Americans are big on magical thinking, even atheists ;-)

Clinton tax forms couldn't have shown all the money flows, and quid pro quos that are the Clinton Foundation.  She has no connection with that, just like Cheney had no connection to Halliburton.

QuoteThe old and fallacious "Nader cost Gore the election."  Because, after all, the Nader votes actually belonged to Gore and those selfish Nader voters didn't give Gore his property.  This is the same Gore who couldn't carry his home state, but could carry his home state in a state-wide Senate race so don't say "oh but that is a red state."

Yes, selfish, but not to Gore but rather society as a whole. They wanted their cake, their candy, their gellato and to eat it too and cost everyone in the long run.

Rather than get something they agreed with 50-70%, but actually would succeed, by throwing their votes away because they "wanted" more (even though they would never even get it) in at least two states they got someone they agreed with maybe 10-20% and ended up costing the nation severely.

It's cutting your nose off to spite your own face, with the wonderful benefit of cutting everyone else's off because if you cant look good no one else can either. You don't get to contribute to a mess then walk away.

QuoteSo if I, in California, vote third party, it will destabilize our government?

No, but selling this snake-oil to people in swing states can lead to that.

Third parties are almost all "revolutionary" parties, and those generally (nearly always) have the unfortunate side effect of never actually getting anything accomplished because they lack the experience and expertise to actually get their way.

Also, still waiting on what candidate with a realistic chance was better than Hillary. I have offered one, if any third partiers would like to add one.

When people speak as if they knew in 2000 what 8 years of George W would be like ... is shooting babbel-fish in a barrel.  It isn't cricket!

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:58:59 PM
Let's trade facts rather than impressions...

I say that Trump is incompetent because the has no experience in international relations.  There is more to world leadership than making money deals.  Trump does yet show any understanding of that..

Yes, I agree with all of that.  But you are supposed to be telling me why you actually think Hillary is good, not just "less evil", since you actually think she is good and not merely less evil.

So, to add the stuff you left out.  Hillary does have experience in international relations, bad experience.  There is more to world leadership than dropping bombs.  Hilary doesn't yet show any understanding of that.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:58:59 PMI say Trump is "vile" because he is a mysoginist, groper, who thinks nothing of running into the dressing rooms of teen women at beauty contests "because he can".  And because  he thinks he can grab women's genitals because they have to let him get away with it sometimes in fear of their careers.

Yes, I agree with all of that.  But you are supposed to be telling me why you actually think Hillary is good, not just "less evil", since you actually think she is good and not merely less evil.

So, to add the stuff you left out.  Hillary is married to someone of the exact same moral caliber, and supports him and defends him from all who would criticize him.  Both candidates believe that is the appropriate way for men to treat women.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:58:59 PMI say he is psychotic because he has no sense of truth, changing it day-to day.  No unfactual statement bothers him in any degree.    I can give you a dozen unfactual statements he has made if you want to be bludgeoned by them.  And that wouldn't be the half of them.

Yes, I agree with all of that.  But you are supposed to be telling me why you actually think Hillary is good, not just "less evil", since you actually think she is good and not merely less evil.

So, to add the stuff you left out.  I say hillary is pathologic because she has no sense of truth, changing it day-to-day.  No unfactual statemtn bothers her either in any degree.  I can also give you dozens of unfactual statements she has made if you want to be bludgeoned by them.  And that woudln't be the half of them.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:58:59 PMMostly, I say he is psychotic because he believes the stuff he makes up as he goes are true BECAUSE HE SAYS THEM!

Yes, I agree with all of that.  But you are supposed to be telling me why you actually think Hillary is good, not just "less evil", since you actually think she is good and not merely less evil.

So, to add the stuff you left out.  I say she is psychopathic because she thinks we believe the stuff she makes up as she goes.  She thinks we are all gullible dupes.  I only know one person who thinks that she is honest, and when he is tasked to tell us why Hillary is good he writes a long post telling us why Trump is bad instead.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:58:59 PMI say Trump is unethical because he lies about everything in his life.  He lied about giving money to the veterans.  He lies about giving money to charities (his foundation does with other people's money).  He even lies about giving money to his own campaign.  They are LOANS which he will either get back whole or take them off his taxes!  He wrote off OTHER PEOPLES losses on his own taxes!

Yes, I agree with all of that.  But you are supposed to be telling me why you actually think Hillary is good, not just "less evil", since you actually think she is good and not merely less evil.

So, to add the stuff you left out.  Goodness there is a goldmine here.  But if I mention how donations to the Clinton foundation have lead to expeditied meetings with the Secretary of State, you will insist that I show a signed contract between the Donor and Hillary saying "if you donate here you will get X in reward."

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:58:59 PMNow lets see about Clinton.  She used a private server for convenience.  That must be psychotic right?  Well, no, she was just doing what the Republicans before her did. 

How delusional must one be to say "you think using a private jet is psychotic"?

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:58:59 PMShe has both domestic and international governmental experience.  She was in the White House asan active partner to a President, A Senator who worked across the aisle with Repub Senators to get a few bills passed.  Then was Secretary of State.  So it seems she has some experience.

I did cover her aggressive militaristic foreign policy.  She's as Hawkish and Aggressive as Dick Cheney.  You hated it in Dick Cheney, you live it in Hillary.  She has experience, but her experience leaves out any attempt to ever find a peaceful solution.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:58:59 PMEthics must be your problem, then.   She gave some speeches for money while out of office.  So did the Bushes.

And I mentioned this when?

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:58:59 PMClinton showed her tax forms.  That MUST be some unethical trick for sure.

Yes.  Tax forms are the only form of financial shenanigans.  Donations to the Clinton Foundation in order to gain political access don't show up on tax forms.  But that doesn't bother you.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:58:59 PMShe met with someone who gave money to the Clinton Foundation who had been giving money to it for years before.  And it was someone the Secretary of State SHOULD meet with.

And others as well, who gave money and then got rushed appointment.  But you found one old long-time donor, so all the rest don't exist.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 03, 2016, 03:58:59 PMThose things don't even come close to similar.  So what is your REAL problem with her.  Let's hear the truth of what you think.  It is either going to be conspiratorial or laughable.

I gave you the similarities, but you don't want to see it.

You are so ashamed that you are knowingly voting for someone you know to be evil (even after you salved your conscience with "lesser of two evils" nonsense) that you are desperate to try to paint this unethical psychopath as somehow a saint.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 03, 2016, 06:11:00 PM
Also, still waiting on what candidate with a realistic chance was better than Hillary. I have offered one, if any third partiers would like to add one.

Of course nobody has a better chance, because there are only two parties.  And if you live in a non-swing state you had better grow up and choose between the psychopath or the phsychotic.  If you don't, then the entire political structure will collapse.

Glad to see you admit your position is irrelevant then. Bu lets narrow it down... what non- contending candidate was better?

Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2016, 06:15:32 PM
When people speak as if they knew in 2000 what 8 years of George W would be like ... is shooting babbel-fish in a barrel.  It isn't cricket!

I voted for Gore, but when Bush won, I thought, "Give him a chance.  Lets see what he does."  He seemed like a deer caught in the headlights until 9-11, and then he got his feet on the ground.  I no longer had any confidence or hope for man.

I remember right after Bush was elected, I mentioned to my boss, an ardent Republican, "What do you think he will be like as a president?"  My boss without hesitation, replied, "Oh, I think he will be just another do nothing president," to which I uttered a sigh of relief.  As it turned out he did a lot, none of which I approved of. 

Cavebear, it is obvious what is going on here.  You want top vote for someone who is good.  Unfortunately this election is a lesser of two evils election, more so than those in the past and none of them were good either.  You want to vote for someone who is good so badly that you want to pretend that the one you support is good.

That's why you are so offended when someone says "Hillary is less evil" that you actually would think that person is a Trump supporter for not being enthusiastic enough about Hillary.

But she isn't good.  Not even close.  She is Dick Cheney, now in female version.

So your choices really are lesser of two evils.  Pick one that is less evil, and say "I am supporting the less evil candidate."  Pretending that there is any virtue in Hillary other than her not being Trump, that's just plain silly.



Shiranu, I don't admit my position is irrelevant, because as I pointed out to you before my vote won't change the short term outcome even a little.  And if, perchance as you put it, enough people were to buy my "snake oil", no, it wouldn't cause chaos.  What it would lead to is that rarest of things and the only thing that would make Cavebear happy - the chance to actually choose a good candidate.  It isn't impossible, just improbable, but the more people buy into the corrupt philosophy of "I don't live in a swing state but I must grow up and choose between the lesser of two evils" the more improbable it is.  People like you are the reason we have to choose between Hillary and Trump.  If people were to actually vote for someone good instead of strategically voting for the lesser evil "because it can win" we'd actually get good people.  Cavebear wouldn't even have to pretend that the candidate he supports is somehow good.

Those ethicists and those who agree with them are the reason we have lesser of two evils, the reason we have Trump and Clinton.  If you must choose between two evils, then something is wrong with the decisions that lead up to that choice.  Perhaps you ought to consider what corrupt ethics brought us to this place instead of bitching that there are a few people who reject that corrupt ethics.

QuoteIf people were to actually vote for someone good instead of strategically voting for the lesser evil "because it can win" we'd actually get good people.

Still waiting on those names of good people in politics.

Spoiler alert; no, it wouldn't make good people win or even become an option because good people don't become politicians, and when they do they are corrupted by it's power. That's why the "good" politicians are names etched into history, while 99.99% of the "regular" rest have long gone forgotten.

So you can blame it on me all you want, but the fact of the matter is that politics has never been a game of "who is nicer" but rather, "Who can get shit done". You can either play by the rules and make sure that the most efficient also share some ideology with you, or you can stomp your foot and cry about how unfair it is. But the second isn't going to get you any further than it has since the beginning of organized civilization.

QuoteThose ethicists and those who agree with them are the reason we have lesser of two evils, the reason we have Trump and Clinton.  If you must choose between two evils, then something is wrong with the decisions that lead up to that choice.  Perhaps you ought to consider what corrupt ethics brought us to this place instead of bitching that there are a few people who reject that corrupt ethics.

Oh, I've considered it. I just don't buy your conclusion that the system is broke and third parties would fix it. I view the situation pragmatically and realise change comes from within rather than believe against all historical evidence that someone who can only pull in 2% of the vote not on his own merits but, "He isn't one of them!" (By the way, that is voting for the lesser of two evil... which means third parties get even less 'pure' votes) will magically make things better. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other big name Progressives in the Democratic party have made more change in the last few years than any third party, and unfortunately so has groups like the Tea Party in the Republican. They realised that the most efficient way to change a system is from within.

You are advocating that we vote for the lesser of evils and the cost of having any realistic means of making change. You are advocating that voting for "good people" will magically fix the system that corrupts good people. You are advocating that we do something that has proven to be irrelevant decade after decade of elections. That is snake oil. You might as well be peddling that Jesus will bring salvation to the state, #JesusforPrez 2020.

And don't get wrong, I entirely get where you are coming from and the appeal of it, I use to be right there with you on the attraction to third parties. It's just so non pragmatic that even i, provably one of the most hopeful and idealistic here, just can't buy into it anymore.

Add onto that that every third party candidate is worse than Hillary and worse than most Republicans...

It's not just 3rd parties.  If there were a good person running in a major party, I'd vote for that good person even though that good person is running in a major party.  I believe that one should vote for good without regard to party.

I'm willing to cross party lines if it means supporting someone who is good.

Yet strangely we see strategic voting taking place as early as the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary.  Something is wrong if we're voting strategically that early.

Shiranu ... I used to be like you, young and idealistic, and thinking that the Republicans would pragmatically recover after Nixon, as the Democrats would pragmatically recover after Johnson.  Alas, it didn't happen.  Initially I voted for the individual, not the party (but that was divide and conquer against myself).

Jason ... I used to be like you.  But then the Republicans became Crusading Evangelicals.  Then I tried voting for the party.  But Bill Clinton turned out to be a pig in a poke.  So I stopped voting for several cycles.  But George W got elected.  So I came back and voted for the guy who saved us from Hillary Clinton ... Barak Obama.  By 2012 I was back to voting for the least worst candidate (sorry, no Rmoney for me).  In all of these elections, I never considered voting third party ... because that would be throwing my vote away.  I have learned a lot of bad lessons, but that is why I finally voted third party (even if my state isn't a swing state).

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 03, 2016, 01:40:27 PM
Clinton is ethical?  Oh boy.  Look, just because Trump is the epitome of everything that is wrong with culture in the US doesn't magically miraculously transform Hillary into anything better than the epitome of everything wrong with politics in the US.

This is why it's a choice of voting between Hillary and Trump.

I'm actually more frustrated with people voting third party than the people voting for Trump at this point. At least the people voting for Trump aren't lying to themselves, thinking they're going to be in anyway productive when they vote for a third party candidate

Quote from: Shiranu on November 03, 2016, 07:43:50 PMYou are advocating that we vote for the lesser of evils and the cost of having any realistic means of making change. You are advocating that voting for "good people" will magically fix the system that corrupts good people. You are advocating that we do something that has proven to be irrelevant decade after decade of elections. That is snake oil. You might as well be peddling that Jesus will bring salvation to the state, #JesusforPrez 2020.

I had pretty much this same conversation with a friend of mine.

The way I look at it is you have candidates for a job opening.  You and a bunch of other managers have a pool of candidates to pick from, and it is steadily winnowed down, sometimes before you get your say.  You can pick whoever you want - even someone not on the list - but if you can't reach some sort of consensus with the other managers, it's not gonna happen.  You can try to find a perfect candidate, and it might feel good or right to make that pick (shouldn't a manager pick the best candidate possible?) but again, without a consensus, your pick is going nowhere.  Realistically, some sort of compromise is going to have to happen.  You're going to have to budge on some things to accomplish other things.  That's just how it works.  Politics is the art of compromise.  People who don't accept that are living in a fantasy land.

Ah, but the folks who are pro X don't like compromise ... because none of them are actual pols, not even back-benchers.  Just monkeys in the peanut gallery ;-)

I have hired people.  It is a pure crap shoot, no matter how much due diligence you do beforehand.  It takes 6 months after you hire them, to see what they are really like.  And no, the analogy breaks down ... you and I are not plutocrats deciding on the short list of candidates ... pols and police are employed by the plutocracy, not by the public.  So why can't we tell how a candidate is going to work out?  Because we can't predict the future (but everyone here thinks they can).  Without knowing the future how can you know if candidate X is the better choice?

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 03, 2016, 01:18:30 PM
How could you possibly know that?

Because "proof or your wrong" isn't just for theists any more.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 02, 2016, 03:42:35 PM
Speaking of which, let's talk about Jill Stein for a second (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/10/jill-stein-wants-national-conversation-on-oppressive-comedians/)

Holy shit!  Did this poor little white girl just say, "A comedian made fun of me, a plight is as bad as that of black people"???

Quote from: widdershins on November 04, 2016, 12:25:07 PM
Holy shit!  Did this poor little white girl just say, "A comedian made fun of me, a plight is as bad as that of that of black people"???

"I'll show them. I'll show them all! "

Quote from: widdershins on November 04, 2016, 12:22:59 PM
Because "proof or your wrong" isn't just for theists any more.

Theists aren't wrong because they won't provide proof. Theists are (likely) wrong because (imo) god is an illogical concept. Proof (or evidence) is what I was asking you for. Proof that she had nothing to do with it. You don't have that proof, so instead you should have said "There is no evidence that she had anything to do with killing anyone" then I would have agreed and there would be nothing to respond to. Instead you made a claim that can not be backed.

It would be fine for Hillary herself to say that she had nothing to do with it, because she knows whether she did or not. She has that knowledge. You do not know, though, and are just assuming because you don't want to feel shitty about voting for her. You shouldn't even say that your best friend or your wife or your brother are not killers, because you simply do not know that. The more correct statement would be "My best friend, and wife, and brother have not killed anyone, as far as I know." When you say that Hillary has not killed anyone, that may or may not be correct. You simply do not have enough information to make that call. Why don't you wait until more information comes in before you make that call? That doesn't mean that you have to be right in the middle of the fence like I am when it comes to these suspicious deaths. Call it farfeched and silly and highly unlikely, that's all fine, but don't put the burden of proof onto yourself by making a positive claim that just can't be shown to be correct or even probably correct. As long as you simply state that you are going to dismiss any claims about her having anything to do with any deaths, because of the lack of evidence, then there is no burden of proof on you, and that burden of proof will belong to the one's making the claim that she did have people killed.

Quote from: widdershins on November 04, 2016, 12:22:59 PM
Because "proof or your wrong" isn't just for theists any more.

Correct. Thank you. I was about to say that

I actually am less frustrated with people that aren't voting at all than people that think voting third party will do anything.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 04, 2016, 03:04:33 PM
Correct. Thank you. I was about to say that

Sorry. I just realised that you guys are not meaning to be literal when you say 'wrong' or 'she didn't', but probably instead mean 'I'm going to assume it's not true or she didn't do such and such until evidence comes in showing that she did'. If he literally meant that one is wrong until they prove their case, then that would mean that a few years ago it would be correct to state that the higgs boson does not exist, but of course reality doesn't change based on evidence. The higgs boson existed whether we had enough evidence to show that or not. When we know that Hillary talked about killing the guy who was having the information leaked to him (Assange), I don't think it's that far of a stretch to say that maybe she could have had similar thoughts about the guy who was leaking that information to Mr. Assange, especially when there are billions of dollars on the line here. Gang members kill over thousands of dollars, or sometimes maybe even hundreds. We are talking about billions of dollars being on the line here and someone who has talked about killing people for releasing her information. This isn't some situation like where we have someone claimed to be killed because they were going to talk about UFOs or aliens or some bunk like that. Unlike the alien spaceships, the money on the line here is very real. She floated the idea of killing someone for leaking her information before, and I'm not naive enough to think that she wouldn't have probably had that same idea for someone else caught leaking her information.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You asserted something to be true and there is nothing you have to support it, so we dismissed it.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 04, 2016, 05:45:46 PM
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You asserted something to be true and there is nothing you have to support it, so we dismissed it.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I did not assert anything. I'm on the fence.

Why voting is important, even if your individual vote doesn't swing the election.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/h2/fbac/moreofthis/heres-a-bunch-of-people-who-are-sort-of-depending-on-your-vo?utm_term=.xkWzQVeKj#.cfD4O8q6l (https://www.buzzfeed.com/h2/fbac/moreofthis/heres-a-bunch-of-people-who-are-sort-of-depending-on-your-vo?utm_term=.xkWzQVeKj#.cfD4O8q6l)

You say if everyone would just vote third party, things would change... even though all evidence points to the contrary since no third party is running on an actual platform other than, "We aren't the big two!" and thus are just a lesser of two evils vote themselves. I personally rather make sure my vote goes towards actual people who need my help rather than trying to further my own personal agenda and ego, even if it doesn't win.


Insuring the candidate who best represents them wins is important, and so is making a statement. Trump is expected to only win by a few percentage points here in Texas, where Republicans normally win by double digits. You think that doesn't send a message that the masses are growing sicker of his right wing bullshit? Do you not think that in an election or two, seeing that Republicans no longer have a strong hold here, more people who said, "Whatever, the Republicans are just going to win anyways..." won't come out to vote?

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 04, 2016, 02:21:46 PM
Theists aren't wrong because they won't provide proof. Theists are (likely) wrong because (imo) god is an illogical concept. Proof (or evidence) is what I was asking you for. Proof that she had nothing to do with it. You don't have that proof, so instead you should have said "There is no evidence that she had anything to do with killing anyone" then I would have agreed and there would be nothing to respond to. Instead you made a claim that can not be backed.

It would be fine for Hillary herself to say that she had nothing to do with it, because she knows whether she did or not. She has that knowledge. You do not know, though, and are just assuming because you don't want to feel shitty about voting for her. You shouldn't even say that your best friend or your wife or your brother are not killers, because you simply do not know that. The more correct statement would be "My best friend, and wife, and brother have not killed anyone, as far as I know." When you say that Hillary has not killed anyone, that may or may not be correct. You simply do not have enough information to make that call. Why don't you wait until more information comes in before you make that call? That doesn't mean that you have to be right in the middle of the fence like I am when it comes to these suspicious deaths. Call it farfeched and silly and highly unlikely, that's all fine, but don't put the burden of proof onto yourself by making a positive claim that just can't be shown to be correct or even probably correct. As long as you simply state that you are going to dismiss any claims about her having anything to do with any deaths, because of the lack of evidence, then there is no burden of proof on you, and that burden of proof will belong to the one's making the claim that she did have people killed.

Hillary is a long term member of The Family ... a Congressional Christian group.  So you know she has to be crazy ;-)

Oh, Hitler never killed anyone ... those 66 million who died in WW II, did it to themselves perhaps.  Or space aliens.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 04, 2016, 05:39:21 PM
Sorry. I just realised that you guys are not meaning to be literal when you say 'wrong' or 'she didn't', but probably instead mean 'I'm going to assume it's not true or she didn't do such and such until evidence comes in showing that she did'. If he literally meant that one is wrong until they prove their case, then that would mean that a few years ago it would be correct to state that the higgs boson does not exist, but of course reality doesn't change based on evidence. The higgs boson existed whether we had enough evidence to show that or not. When we know that Hillary talked about killing the guy who was having the information leaked to him (Assange), I don't think it's that far of a stretch to say that maybe she could have had similar thoughts about the guy who was leaking that information to Mr. Assange, especially when there are billions of dollars on the line here. Gang members kill over thousands of dollars, or sometimes maybe even hundreds. We are talking about billions of dollars being on the line here and someone who has talked about killing people for releasing her information. This isn't some situation like where we have someone claimed to be killed because they were going to talk about UFOs or aliens or some bunk like that. Unlike the alien spaceships, the money on the line here is very real. She floated the idea of killing someone for leaking her information before, and I'm not naive enough to think that she wouldn't have probably had that same idea for someone else caught leaking her information.

Trillions, not billions.  You slipped a few zeros.

Shiranu ... I help people every damn day.  This happens if I vote or not.  If you aren't helping people every damn day ... check your image in the mirror, in case you are related to Dorian Gray.  My voting may or may not help anyone.  I am pretty sure being in a march or protest won't help anyone ... and other such Leftist direct action is always the same "captured opposition" shit.  You are being played by the Dark State ... way back to the 1960s.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/04/fox-news-poll-clinton-ahead-trump-by-two-points.html

A two point spread.  It's unbelievable.  Trump and Clinton both with high negative ratings making it a race between who is the least less desirable.  All partisan stuff aside, it has got to make people wonder.  I can't believe it, but I should.  It's all right there in the numbers.  America is split almost even, and that's equally unbelievable.  I doubt I will ever see us a united nation again in my lifetime.  Polarization just keeps getting more entrenched.  It's a dynamic that seems to have a life and momentum of its own.  Not that two points is the main issue.  It's the deep hatred that is developing between two halves.  I think that's what bothers me the most.

So an intentionally bad deed is excused by an intentional good deed, and thus no one can judge.

Since Hitler has been brought up, he did various good things for the German people, so you can't judge him for the holocaust.

Quote from: SGOS on November 04, 2016, 08:03:41 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/04/fox-news-poll-clinton-ahead-trump-by-two-points.html

A two point spread.  It's unbelievable.  Trump and Clinton both with high negative ratings making it a race between who is the least less desirable.  All partisan stuff aside, it has got to make people wonder.  I can't believe it, but I should.  It's all right there in the numbers.  America is split almost even, and that's equally unbelievable.  I doubt I will ever see us a united nation again in my lifetime.  Polarization just keeps getting more entrenched.  It's a dynamic that seems to have a life and momentum of its own.  Not that two points is the main issue.  It's the deep hatred that is developing between two halves.  I think that's what bothers me the most.

While I don't believe the polls, or even the counted votes ... there is a great divide.

"I can hire half of the working class to kill the other half" ... Jay Gould ... robber baron ... you are all being played, and I am enjoying my popcorn.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 04, 2016, 08:04:44 PM
So an intentionally bad deed is excused by an intentional good deed, and thus no one can judge.

Since Hitler has been brought up, he did various good things for the German people, so you can't judge him for the holocaust.

I assume that was in jest ... unless you would like to join the Holocaust deniers.  And I don't judge Nazis, I just kill them.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 03, 2016, 10:53:03 PM
This is why it's a choice of voting between Hillary and Trump.

I'm actually more frustrated with people voting third party than the people voting for Trump at this point. At least the people voting for Trump aren't lying to themselves, thinking they're going to be in anyway productive when they vote for a third party candidate

But I've admitted that my third party vote isn't productive, just as it wouldn't be productive if I voted major party.  California is going for Hillary, no matter how I vote.  So now you think that I think my vote is productive?

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 04, 2016, 11:19:23 PM
But I've admitted that my third party vote isn't productive, just as it wouldn't be productive if I voted major party.  California is going for Hillary, no matter how I vote.  So now you think that I think my vote is productive?

Whether you actually think you're being productive or not, the bottom line is that you are wasting your gas and putting unnecessary miles on your car to make a useless vote. I guess it's it's just the fact that you're doing something for the sake of voting. It's like if I ordered a hamburger with extra tomatoes and then I took all the extra tomatoes knowing that I was just going to put the extra tomatoes in the trash. It's a waste and it doesn't make sense.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 05, 2016, 01:54:07 AM
Whether you actually think you're being productive or not, the bottom line is that you are wasting your gas and putting unnecessary miles on your car to make a useless vote. I guess it's it's just the fact that you're doing something for the sake of voting. It's like if I ordered a hamburger with extra tomatoes and then I took all the extra tomatoes knowing that I was just going to put the extra tomatoes in the trash. It's a waste and it doesn't make sense.

All this waste can be solved by choosing monarchy.  Choosing a Kennedy, a Bush, a Clinton ... and you are choosing monarchy.  I hope the Obamas go back under their rock in Chicago and stay there.

No. It's still not a monarchy. We also have the other 2 thirds of the judicial system that rule our country, which also can be voted on.
Learn how our government works, Baruch.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on November 05, 2016, 06:27:10 AMAll this waste can be solved by choosing monarchy.

How does one go about installing a monarchy?  Do you vote in order to not have a vote?

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 05, 2016, 10:14:01 AM
No. It's still not a monarchy. We also have the other 2 thirds of the judicial system that rule our country, which also can be voted on.
Learn how our government works, Baruch.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

We vote on SCOTUS?  What an Obama Constitutional scholar are you!  The SCOTUS is part of the problem.  We do vote on Congress, but the voters are irresponsible (it is the other Congressman who is bad, not my Congressman), and Congress is part of the problem.  The US system is coming apart and won't survive (see Citizen's United).  We are going to a Rollerball future.  After decades of being an American citizen, I don't think the US works politically (at the Federal level), it is a sick joke.

Quote from: Hydra009 on November 05, 2016, 11:48:42 AM
How does one go about installing a monarchy?  Do you vote in order to not have a vote?

The Roman way.  General Patreus sizes power ... and eventually has his own children succeed him.  That is how William the Bastard set himself up in England.  There is no social contract ... and your vote doesn't count anyway ... particularly if you don't vote or you vote like an idiot (not speaking of you personally).

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 04, 2016, 02:21:46 PM
Theists aren't wrong because they won't provide proof. Theists are (likely) wrong because (imo) god is an illogical concept. Proof (or evidence) is what I was asking you for. Proof that she had nothing to do with it...

Come on.  You know better than to ask someone to prove a negative.

Quote from: widdershins on November 07, 2016, 02:52:29 PM
Come on.  You know better than to ask someone to prove a negative.

Maybe he doesn't?

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 05, 2016, 01:54:07 AM
Whether you actually think you're being productive or not, the bottom line is that you are wasting your gas and putting unnecessary miles on your car to make a useless vote. I guess it's it's just the fact that you're doing something for the sake of voting. It's like if I ordered a hamburger with extra tomatoes and then I took all the extra tomatoes knowing that I was just going to put the extra tomatoes in the trash. It's a waste and it doesn't make sense.

The same wast occurs if you vote major party, yet you won't call that waste.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 07, 2016, 04:19:48 PM
The same wast occurs if you vote major party, yet you won't call that waste.

Lol no it isn't. I'm preventing a travesty by making a vote for someone that has a chance.

Also. Do you vote third party during the entirety of each term? As in, do you vote to your Senate and house representatives? Your local politicians? Or are you just blowing hot air and being 'rebellious (tm)' ?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 07, 2016, 04:08:46 PM
Maybe he doesn't?

I've generally found FaithIsFilth to be an intelligent poster.  We've had our differences, but we can usually talk about them rationally like adults.

Quote from: widdershins on November 07, 2016, 05:09:33 PM
I've generally found FaithIsFilth to be an intelligent poster.  We've had our differences, but we can usually talk about them rationally like adults.

I've found this too, which is why I find it puzzling that he's pulling the "prove the negative card"

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

With the IRS, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.  If I were with the IRS, y'all would be under arrest ... cardiac arrest that is ;-)

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 07, 2016, 04:56:05 PM
Lol no it isn't. I'm preventing a travesty by making a vote for someone that has a chance.

Also. Do you vote third party during the entirety of each term? As in, do you vote to your Senate and house representatives? Your local politicians? Or are you just blowing hot air and being 'rebellious (tm)' ?

So you actually think your vote will change the outcome.  Fascinating.

Which means that you think my 3rd party vote isn't a waste, because you think our votes actually matter.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 08, 2016, 12:17:08 PM
So you actually think your vote will change the outcome.  Fascinating.

Which means that you think my 3rd party vote isn't a waste, because you think our votes actually matter.

You are severely misunderstanding.

Voting for a third party candidate is a waste because they will not win.  Voting for Hillary or Trump will because they are the front runners and both have an almost equal chance at winning.
Specifically, a vote for the democratic or republican nominee matters, all other presidential votes are an absolute waste.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I cannot win, because I am not part of the Elite.  Therefore I shouldn't vote, shouldn't live, right?  But I would rather be right and lose, than be wrong and win ... any day of the week.  Wanting to be a winner ... is the mother of all corruption ... it has only selfish ambition, and no conscience.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 08, 2016, 12:20:53 PM
You are severely misunderstanding.

Voting for a third party candidate is a waste because they will not win.  Voting for Hillary or Trump will because they are the front runners and both have an almost equal chance at winning.
Specifically, a vote for the democratic or republican nominee matters, all other presidential votes are an absolute waste.

Voting for Hillary or Trump won't change the outcome, voting for 3rd Party won't change the outcome.

Your argument is that my vote is vital, unless I vote 3rd party at which point it is wasted.

You are contradicting yourself.  Either my vote counts or it doesn't.  If it counts, it counts even if I vote 3rd party.  If it doesn't count, then it doesn't count even if I vote major party.

So my vote is vital, which is why if I vote 3rd party it doesn't count, at which point it is not vital, which is why I have to throw it away on a major party vote, because my not vital vote is vital if voting major party but my vital vote is not vital if I vote 3rd party.

I'm really not sure how you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 08, 2016, 02:55:55 PM
Voting for Hillary or Trump won't change the outcome, voting for 3rd Party won't change the outcome.

Your argument is that my vote is vital, unless I vote 3rd party at which point it is wasted.

You are contradicting yourself.  Either my vote counts or it doesn't.  If it counts, it counts even if I vote 3rd party.  If it doesn't count, then it doesn't count even if I vote major party.

You need to understand there's a difference between a vote counting and a vote mattering.

I cast my vote today. It counted. But it didn't matter. I live in connecticut.

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 08, 2016, 03:10:00 PM
I'm really not sure how you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying.

I understand it.  A vote only counts if voted for a major party candidate, because then it will change the outcome.  But if a vote for a 3rd party candidate won't count, because it won't change the outcome.  That means your vote only counts if you vote the right way or the wrong way.

Which means you think either I personally individually will either change the entire outcome of the election or I won't depending on how I vote.

The reason you think I don't understand you is because you are contradicting yourself and I'm stating your self-contradiction plainly.

If my vote is that important, then it is that important even if I vote 3rd party.  If my vote doesn't count, then it doesn't count even if I vote major party.  You can't say it is conditionally important.  You contradict yourself when you do.

All you get for voting major party is a 50% chance that you will be voting in the same way as the winning team.  It puts you in the same situation as a sports fan watching TV yelling "we won we won".  "We"?  The fan sitting there didn't do anything.  He just watched the game.

I'm not the one contradicting myself.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

You're the one saying my vote counts except for when it doesn't, and that it doesn't count except for when it does.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 08, 2016, 03:55:41 PM
You're the one saying my vote counts except for when it doesn't, and that it doesn't count except for when it does.

No. I'm saying if you vote 3rd party, it doesn't count. The reason for this is that 3rd party candidates have zero chance at winning the election. It's a waste of time. It's not the equivalent to me of voting for the opposite of who I'm voting for; it's the equivalent of staying home.

A vote for the two main nominees is different for the reason that they are both the major party nominees and both have a very good chance at winning.

On that note, if you're  going to be so thick-headed to put words in my mouth and misunderstand what I'm saying, I'm gonna hop out of this. I can't think of many more ways to say the same thing in a more simplified way for you to understand it, without it being completely condescending. On top of that, the election day is over. Everyone that selected their picks for president is pretty much set, even the people ignorant enough to think that voting 3rd party will do anything.

Later.

A vote for a 3rd party only means one thing - you don't have the 50% chance to say "we won" while you didn't do anything to help your team win.

If it is so important for you to take credit for something you didn't actually participate in, go ahead and watch sports.  The more the better.  You can tell yourself that by watching you helped them win.

That's all your major party vote will do - give you a 50% chance of fooling yourself into thinking you made a difference.

I didn't realise votes had nothing to do with the voting process or voting someone into office. You learn something new everyday.

Try an experiment.  Vote 3rd party and see if that swings your state's outcome.  If it does, then you can believe that your vote is more than just a spectator sport, like watching football on tv.

Or, more like, watching pro-wrestling on tv.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 08, 2016, 05:00:28 PMTry an experiment.  Vote 3rd party and see if that swings your state's outcome.

Isn't that exactly the point that everyone's been arguing with you about?  When you're hopelessly outvoted, you're not going to change the outcome.  But when you throw your weight on either of the leading options, that could change the outcome.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 08, 2016, 05:00:28 PM
Try an experiment.  Vote 3rd party and see if that swings your state's outcome.  If it does, then you can believe that your vote is more than just a spectator sport, like watching football on tv.

Or, more like, watching pro-wrestling on tv.

If 1000 some people had done that very experiment in Florida, we would be remembering the presidency not of Bush but of Gore.

Tell me, how many extra people would have to vote libertarian to say the same? How many times have so few people needed made the difference on the win or loss of a libertarian?

Your analogy is, frankly, moronic. The only accurate way it can be construed is towards your position, my dear fan; no matter how loudly you cheer, your team will still have a 100% chance of losing. Sucks being a Clippers fan, doesn't it?

I know this is probably a hard concept for libertarians, but the world does consist of more than just, "Me, myself and I.". It's a very romantic ideology, but it doesn't hold much weight in the modern world.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 08, 2016, 05:00:28 PM
Try an experiment.  Vote 3rd party and see if that swings your state's outcome.  If it does, then you can believe that your vote is more than just a spectator sport, like watching football on tv.

Or, more like, watching pro-wrestling on tv.

That.
is.
the.
point.


If I... or you... vote 3rd party, it won't swing anything. It's the exact same thing as if we stayed at home, except we got in our car and went to the voting booth and casted a vote that didn't matter.

On the other hand, helping to build up points on a candidate that DOES have a chance at winning can swing the election.

I'm trying to find a .gif of someone blowing their head off with a revolver, but I can't find one that is not totally nsfw

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 08, 2016, 06:06:07 PM
I'm trying to find a .gif of someone blowing their head off with a revolver, but I can't find one that is not totally nsfw

(http://i.imgur.com/tqzGqEg.jpg)

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2k3ua0vrV1qmj3xpo1_500.gif)

Best I could do.

I, by myself, cannot sway the election with my one vote.
I, by myself, cannot make a difference with carbon emissions to slow or stop climate change.
I, by myself, cannot change the way a corporation does business by boycotting their product.

A raindrop does not cause a flood.

Quote from: Hydra009 on November 08, 2016, 05:16:55 PM
Isn't that exactly the point that everyone's been arguing with you about?  When you're hopelessly outvoted, you're not going to change the outcome.  But when you throw your weight on either of the leading options, that could change the outcome.

When the two main choices are Hitler vs Stalin .. that isn't a good strategy.  Best to get to Canada ... you defeatist south-paws.

So y'all still living in fear of hanging Chad from 2000?  About time y'all got over that.  You could have changed the election easier that year, by having a Left wing death squad eliminate Nader.  In 92 Bush Sr could have also done better, to have a Right wing death squad eliminate Perot, as he in fact threatened to do, but didn't carry out.  Assassinatus interruptus.

Quote from: Hydra009 on November 08, 2016, 06:25:22 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/tqzGqEg.jpg)

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2k3ua0vrV1qmj3xpo1_500.gif)

Best I could do.

You are a good man, Hydra.

a good man

Quote from: PickelledEggs on November 08, 2016, 05:51:52 PM
That.
is.
the.
point.


If I... or you... vote 3rd party, it won't swing anything. It's the exact same thing as if we stayed at home, except we got in our car and went to the voting booth and casted a vote that didn't matter.

On the other hand, helping to build up points on a candidate that DOES have a chance at winning can swing the election.

Then your vote STILL doesn't swing the election.

It is EXACTLY like watching a football game on your TV at home, and then cheering "we won we won" instead of "my favorite team won" if you vote major party.  That's the ONLY difference.

So, I very selfishly voted 3rd party here in California.  Because I didn't vote for Hillary I all by my lonesome swung the state for Trump.  Hillary is only leading by 61% to 34% for Trump because I didn't vote for Her, so Trump will get all the California electoral votes.

Yes, If I... or you... vote major party, it won't swing anything.

I voted.  In Maryland, it doesn't really matter.  The State is Democratic.  But I vote anyway.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 09, 2016, 12:08:34 AM
Then your vote STILL doesn't swing the election.

It is EXACTLY like watching a football game on your TV at home, and then cheering "we won we won" instead of "my favorite team won" if you vote major party.  That's the ONLY difference.

So, I very selfishly voted 3rd party here in California.  Because I didn't vote for Hillary I all by my lonesome swung the state for Trump.  Hillary is only leading by 61% to 34% for Trump because I didn't vote for Her, so Trump will get all the California electoral votes.

Yes, If I... or you... vote major party, it won't swing anything.

And once again, you think it is all about you. A common trend amongst 3rd partiers.

To quote a gay friend of mine...

QuoteIf you voted 3rd Party you don't get to talk about how surprised you are right now. You don't get to tell us how scared you are for us (LGBTQ). How you can't believe he could be President. No. How dare you. All you cared about was your ridiculous purist measurement. About keeping your conscious clear. So please save it. Your moral compass doesn't include us. It was always really YOU. So please allow us that actually tried to stop Trump feel what is going on right now.

The third party voters of Mich., of Penn, of several others that were close... they voted their ego over combating racism. Over combating sexism. Over combating homophobia. Over combating xenophobia. Over combating "Islamaphobia" (and I use that for lack of a better word since that is closest to what these idiots believe).

Congrats. I hope your own pride was more important than the negative ramification of your actions. But to the third party, and particularly libertarians, only one thing really matters... me, me, me... I, I, I.

I don't think it's fair to blame third-party voters for trump's election.
And I don't think it right to blame the democrats either.
Trump got elected because of trump and trumpeteers.
To blame those that didn't vote for him seems like folly, at least to me.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 09, 2016, 02:29:10 AM
I don't think it's fair to blame third-party voters for trump's election.
And I don't think it right to blame the democrats either.
Trump got elected because of trump and trumpeteers.
To blame those that didn't vote for him seems like folly, at least to me.

I don't agree. As far as I understand there is a large group in democrats who voted for Trump just 'in spite' of Hillary, because of their personal feelings or not voted because of Hillary while they would never vote for Trump. 

And yes in this case, people who didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party, actually 'voted' for the orangutan. Pass my congrats to them. And I bet they were very confident because he would never win.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 09, 2016, 02:29:10 AM
I don't think it's fair to blame third-party voters for trump's election.
And I don't think it right to blame the democrats either.
Trump got elected because of trump and trumpeteers.
To blame those that didn't vote for him seems like folly, at least to me.

True, but like in 92 ... the third-party vote was decisive both in total votes and in electoral college swing votes (I don't count 2000, because Gore won the total votes).  But in 92, the third-party (Perot) worked for Clinton, not against Clinton.  So it seems things are square now.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 09, 2016, 01:41:11 AM
And once again, you think it is all about you. A common trend amongst 3rd partiers.

To quote a gay friend of mine...


The third party voters of Mich., of Penn, of several others that were close... they voted their ego over combating racism. Over combating sexism. Over combating homophobia. Over combating xenophobia. Over combating "Islamaphobia" (and I use that for lack of a better word since that is closest to what these idiots believe).

Congrats. I hope your own pride was more important than the negative ramification of your actions. But to the third party, and particularly libertarians, only one thing really matters... me, me, me... I, I, I.

The republican vote swung enough States for Trump.  Did a single 3rd party vote matter?

Quote from: Cavebear on November 09, 2016, 08:30:32 AM
The republican vote swung enough States for Trump.  Did a single 3rd party vote matter?

Mostly, the third party is a scapegoat.  For of the folly of the Trump campaign, he resonated and connected very well with a majority of voters, and a small majority of the country is happier today than it was yesterday because of it.  Hillary did not resonate very well with her constituents.  She just didn't.  She lacked what it took. 

It's unfair to blame Jill Stein for Clinton's failure to connect or Trump's ability to accumulate enthusiastic support.  I know some people are now married to a perception that they have been betrayed by a group they think rightfully belong in their camp, and I can understand the dynamic behind their anger, but that is not the reason for the failure to seat their candidate.  Hillary in the end, was the weaker candidate.

Quote from: SGOS on November 09, 2016, 08:52:08 AM
Mostly, the third party is a scapegoat.  For of the folly of the Trump campaign, he resonated and connected very well with a majority of voters, and a small majority of the country is happier today than it was yesterday because of it.  Hillary did not resonate very well with her constituents.  She just didn't.  She lacked what it took. 

It's unfair to blame Jill Stein for Clinton's failure to connect or Trump's ability to accumulate enthusiastic support.  I know some people are now married to a perception that they have been betrayed by a group they think rightfully belong in their camp, and I can understand the dynamic behind their anger, but that is not the reason for the failure to seat their candidate.  Hillary in the end, was the weaker candidate.

My point was that Stein wasn't the cause of the results of the election.   

Quote from: Cavebear on November 09, 2016, 09:02:01 AM
My point was that Stein wasn't the cause of the results of the election.   

I didn't actually conclude that.  I was just expanding on it.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 09, 2016, 01:41:11 AM
And once again, you think it is all about you. A common trend amongst 3rd partiers.

To quote a gay friend of mine...


The third party voters of Mich., of Penn, of several others that were close... they voted their ego over combating racism. Over combating sexism. Over combating homophobia. Over combating xenophobia. Over combating "Islamaphobia" (and I use that for lack of a better word since that is closest to what these idiots believe).

Congrats. I hope your own pride was more important than the negative ramification of your actions. But to the third party, and particularly libertarians, only one thing really matters... me, me, me... I, I, I.

I looked at that.  Johnson's total was larger than the margin.

So, what is it about Hillary that was theoretically supposed to appeal to Libertarians?  "Not Trump" is not enough.  Johnson was "Not Trump Not Hillary."

Anyway, I voted 3rd party in California.  Since I voted 3rd party in California, I'm responsible for Florida, Ohio, and Iowa swinging Trump.

Remember, surrender is grown up but wishing to actually do good is childish.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 09, 2016, 01:41:11 AM
The third party voters of Mich., of Penn, of several others that were close... they voted their ego over combating racism. Over combating sexism. Over combating homophobia. Over combating xenophobia. Over combating "Islamaphobia" (and I use that for lack of a better word since that is closest to what these idiots believe).

Congrats. I hope your own pride was more important than the negative ramification of your actions. But to the third party, and particularly libertarians, only one thing really matters... me, me, me... I, I, I.

That of course assumes that everyone who voted for a third party would have voted instead for Hillary if the third party were not an option.  It's easy to look at that and say that Hillary would only need to pick up a third of those votes to have won, but the math isn't quite that simple.  She would have had to pick up about a third of them AND THEN half of what was left.  So out of 212,461 votes Hillary would have had to pic up 68,237 (to win by 1) PLUS 72,112 of what was left for a total of 140,349 votes to win by a single vote.  That's more than 2/3 of the votes cast for third parties she would have had to win.  To put that into context she would have had to pick up either almost ALL of Johnson's votes or ALL of Castle's votes, ALL of Stein's votes and then nearly HALF of Johnson's votes.

While it is tempting to look at the numbers and think, "If Hillary had all those votes she would have won!", reality isn't really that simplistic.  Is it realistic to say someone who couldn't get to 50% of the vote could have picked up just over 66% of the third party vote?  Maybe.  I don't know what was going through the minds of the third party voters, but I am sure many of them would have voted from Trump instead of Hillary and I'm sure that he would have needed to pick up fewer than 1/3 of those votes to STILL have won.

And let's not forget, Trump essentially IS a third party candidate.  He just ran on the Republican ticket.  A third party candidate just won the election.  We either have to get over this idea that voting for a third party somehow always produces the worst-case scenario (Republicans called it a vote for Hillary, Democrats called it a vote for Trump) or Democrats are going to have to start running non-Democrats on their ticket and get the fuck out of the way and let the people decide instead of cheating the system the way they did this last time.

People are not whatever negative thing you happen to decide to throw out for voting third party.  They are not lazy.  They are not prideful.  They are not arrogant.  They are not selfish.  They are not immoral.  They are exercising their right to vote for the candidate who best matches their ideals.  Every time these negative generalizations are thrown around the person making them is insinuating that these people did something wrong.  Now, in this case, I don't think they were the brightest people, to be sure.  All of the other candidates, by my estimation, were crap.  But they didn't do anything wrong.  They do not need or deserve to be chastised.  They did not cause the results of the election to be what they are.  What happened?  You backed the weaker candidate.  Yet you talk as if your candidate was strong enough to have taken 2/3 of the third party votes when he/she wasn't even strong enough to win?  I think that's a bit of an unrealistic expectation.

Quote from: widdershins on November 09, 2016, 04:23:33 PM
And let's not forget, Trump essentially IS a third party candidate.  He just ran on the Republican ticket.  A third party candidate just won the election.  We either have to get over this idea that voting for a third party somehow always produces the worst-case scenario (Republicans called it a vote for Hillary, Democrats called it a vote for Trump) or Democrats are going to have to start running non-Democrats on their ticket and get the fuck out of the way and let the people decide instead of cheating the system the way they did this last time.

I doubt there was intent to cheat the system.  More like they lost touch with constituents.  They have a system is place that worked in the past, but many Democrats are no longer enthusiastic about the message.  It won't necessarily require them to run 3rd party candidates.  Fresh Democrats with progressive ideas that resonate with modern times would work as well.  There's a lot of inertia in the party, and change in America is occurring at a much faster rate.  It's easy to get stuck in an outmoded plan.  That pitfall has toppled business, military endeavors, and it will affect politics.

Quote from: widdershins on November 09, 2016, 04:23:33 PM
That of course assumes that everyone who voted for a third party would have voted instead for Hillary if the third party were not an option.  It's easy to look at that and say that Hillary would only need to pick up a third of those votes to have won, but the math isn't quite that simple.  She would have had to pick up about a third of them AND THEN half of what was left.  So out of 212,461 votes Hillary would have had to pic up 68,237 (to win by 1) PLUS 72,112 of what was left for a total of 140,349 votes to win by a single vote.  That's more than 2/3 of the votes cast for third parties she would have had to win.  To put that into context she would have had to pick up either almost ALL of Johnson's votes or ALL of Castle's votes, ALL of Stein's votes and then nearly HALF of Johnson's votes.

While it is tempting to look at the numbers and think, "If Hillary had all those votes she would have won!", reality isn't really that simplistic.  Is it realistic to say someone who couldn't get to 50% of the vote could have picked up just over 66% of the third party vote?  Maybe.  I don't know what was going through the minds of the third party voters, but I am sure many of them would have voted from Trump instead of Hillary and I'm sure that he would have needed to pick up fewer than 1/3 of those votes to STILL have won.

And let's not forget, Trump essentially IS a third party candidate.  He just ran on the Republican ticket.  A third party candidate just won the election.  We either have to get over this idea that voting for a third party somehow always produces the worst-case scenario (Republicans called it a vote for Hillary, Democrats called it a vote for Trump) or Democrats are going to have to start running non-Democrats on their ticket and get the fuck out of the way and let the people decide instead of cheating the system the way they did this last time.

People are not whatever negative thing you happen to decide to throw out for voting third party.  They are not lazy.  They are not prideful.  They are not arrogant.  They are not selfish.  They are not immoral.  They are exercising their right to vote for the candidate who best matches their ideals.  Every time these negative generalizations are thrown around the person making them is insinuating that these people did something wrong.  Now, in this case, I don't think they were the brightest people, to be sure.  All of the other candidates, by my estimation, were crap.  But they didn't do anything wrong.  They do not need or deserve to be chastised.  They did not cause the results of the election to be what they are.  What happened?  You backed the weaker candidate.  Yet you talk as if your candidate was strong enough to have taken 2/3 of the third party votes when he/she wasn't even strong enough to win?  I think that's a bit of an unrealistic expectation.

If you vote against lgbt rights, women's rights, Muslims, immigrants, disabled professionals, veterans, et. Al. Trump attacked by not standing up to a legitimate threat because of your pride, then I'm sorry but calling you prideful and selfish  is literally magnitudes below the much more brass and much more accurate things you deserve to be called.

Quote from: SGOS on November 09, 2016, 08:52:08 AM
Mostly, the third party is a scapegoat.  For of the folly of the Trump campaign, he resonated and connected very well with a majority of voters, and a small majority of the country is happier today than it was yesterday because of it.  Hillary did not resonate very well with her constituents.  She just didn't.  She lacked what it took. 

It's unfair to blame Jill Stein for Clinton's failure to connect or Trump's ability to accumulate enthusiastic support.  I know some people are now married to a perception that they have been betrayed by a group they think rightfully belong in their camp, and I can understand the dynamic behind their anger, but that is not the reason for the failure to seat their candidate.  Hillary in the end, was the weaker candidate.

The D's in 2000 hated Nader like Germans in 1920 hated Jews because they incorrectly felt the German Jews were unpatriotic.  The D's are narcissists who think they are entitled to all the Independent voter's votes.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 09, 2016, 07:34:11 PM
If you vote against lgbt rights, women's rights, Muslims, immigrants, disabled professionals, veterans, et. Al. Trump attacked by not standing up to a legitimate threat because of your pride, then I'm sorry but calling you prideful and selfish  is literally magnitudes below the much more brass and much more accurate things you deserve to be called.

Even your beard is revolutionary ... Karl ;-)  The problem with revolutionaries, is that most of the time isn't the French or Russian revolution time.  It is status quo time ... or in this case, a little off kilter of status quo ... but not Red flag off kilter.

Quote from: widdershins on November 09, 2016, 04:23:33 PM
And let's not forget, Trump essentially IS a third party candidate.  He just ran on the Republican ticket.  A third party candidate just won the election.  We either have to get over this idea that voting for a third party somehow always produces the worst-case scenario (Republicans called it a vote for Hillary, Democrats called it a vote for Trump) or Democrats are going to have to start running non-Democrats on their ticket and get the fuck out of the way and let the people decide instead of cheating the system the way they did this last time.

It IS worth noting that Trump IS essentially the 1st 3rd party candidate to ever win the Presidency. 

Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 12:51:30 AM
It IS worth noting that Trump IS essentially the 1st 3rd party candidate to ever win the Presidency.

Only because the GOP was on a ventilator with Old Man Bush ... all he had to do was sneak into the hospital room and disconnect it.  If he had tried to take over the DNC ... he would have been Vince Fostered ... even dead, Hillary is dangerous, like a shark.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 09, 2016, 07:34:11 PM
If you vote against lgbt rights, women's rights, Muslims, immigrants, disabled professionals, veterans, et. Al. Trump attacked by not standing up to a legitimate threat because of your pride, then I'm sorry but calling you prideful and selfish  is literally magnitudes below the much more brass and much more accurate things you deserve to be called.

There is no box to check on the ballot to vote "against" something or someone.  That is just not how the system works.  It's fun to pretend it is when your candidate lost and you're looking for someone to blame, but it's an angry idea, not a reality.  You know full well that you cannot group together all the people who didn't vote for Hillary, or even all the people who voted for a third party and say "This one thing is true of all of them".  This just isn't being intellectually honest.

Adding ...

I think many people not just SJWs ... would want a ranked list of issues ... ACA for example ... and see which ones get a plurality.  This is like state-wide issue voting.  Then you have a set of candidates, all of whom swear to implement the issue priorities of the voters ... they are just the tool, not the policy wonks.  This would be a great system.  Since in practice ... the different candidates are all equal, except for irrational reasons ... we could just as well do what the Athenians did, and choose an implementor of the people's will, by random lot.

I wonder how many women voted for Hillary over Bernie in the primary only because she was a woman? How many didn't care what harm she would do just to be selfish and "see a woman president in my lifetime"?

How many still wanted to make history back to back? If you vote for a woman just because she is a woman it is just as bad as not voting for one for the same reason.

Didn't vote for Bill Clinton in 92 because he was White or Barak Obama in 2008 because he was Black.  In both cases for the same two reasons:

1. They are relative outsiders to DC

2. They had non-elite upbringings

I was hoping in both regards, that they would bring something new to the equation ... but they were both quickly coopted ... unless they were coopted from before the election.

Quote from: Hurt on November 11, 2016, 01:08:40 PM
I wonder how many women voted for Hillary over Bernie in the primary only because she was a woman? How many didn't care what harm she would do just to be selfish and "see a woman president in my lifetime"?

How many still wanted to make history back to back? If you vote for a woman just because she is a woman it is just as bad as not voting for one for the same reason.

Slice and dice binary identity politics however you want ... the problem lies in the approach, not in the data.  The approach presupposes neoliberal orthodoxy.

Quote from: Hurt on November 11, 2016, 01:08:40 PM
I wonder how many women voted for Hillary over Bernie in the primary only because she was a woman? How many didn't care what harm she would do just to be selfish and "see a woman president in my lifetime"?

How many still wanted to make history back to back? If you vote for a woman just because she is a woman it is just as bad as not voting for one for the same reason.

How many men voted for her over Bernie? It's now women's faullt, is that it?

There you go. The women vote. And now think if they would have voted for Bernie or not.

The real 'shy Trump' vote - how 53% of white women pushed him to victory
Early data suggest a clear majority of white women voted Republican, and supporters say Trump’s offensive remarks didn’t affect their decision

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/white-women-donald-trump-victory

Hillary failed women vote.

It Trump had been a gentleman ... I would have put him first on my list, and an even greater number of women of all types would have voted for him.  Don't discount female jealousy of "successful" females.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 11, 2016, 01:51:23 PM
There you go. The women vote. And now think if they would have voted for Bernie or not.

The real 'shy Trump' vote - how 53% of white women pushed him to victory
Early data suggest a clear majority of white women voted Republican, and supporters say Trump’s offensive remarks didn’t affect their decision

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/white-women-donald-trump-victory

Hillary failed women vote.

Quick!  All liberals everywhere need to start grabbing women by the pussies!  It's apparently how you get their vote!

That is just fucking sad.  It's kind of like a black man voting for David Duke.  What the fuck?

Quote from: widdershins on November 11, 2016, 01:58:37 PM
Quick!  All liberals everywhere need to start grabbing women by the pussies!  It's apparently how you get their vote!

That is just fucking sad.  It's kind of like a black man voting for David Duke.  What the fuck?

Dr Ben Carson comes to mind.  The exception often proves the rule however ... Carson didn't bring out much Black vote for himself ;-)

Quote from: widdershins on November 11, 2016, 01:58:37 PM
Quick!  All liberals everywhere need to start grabbing women by the pussies!  It's apparently how you get their vote!

:lol: *Cry.

QuoteThat is just fucking sad.  It's kind of like a black man voting for David Duke.  What the fuck?

It's, isn'it? I winced looking at it.

Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 11, 2016, 01:47:06 PM
How many men voted for her over Bernie? It's now women's faullt, is that it?

A lot of people were complicit in this crime against humanity. People on here have denigrated others for voting for a third party candidate, a candidate who would be better than Trump or Clinton. I've seen several interviews during the primaries and the general where middle aged and older women have said the very thing I posted above. I think it hurt us all to have allowed Clinton to get the nomination.

For any here that voted for her mainly because of her gender, wear that badge with shame.

"... a candidate who would be better than Trump or Clinton."
Except none of the third party candidates were.

Quote from: Hurt on November 11, 2016, 02:14:57 PM
A lot of people were complicit in this crime against humanity. People on here have denigrated others for voting for a third party candidate, a candidate who would be better than Trump or Clinton.

That's not about who is a better candidate, but is a fear that it will won't work, but just divide the vote in the end and will be a gain for teh 'other' side.This happens all the time, esp. in two party sytems.

I can't really be sure of anyone who was actually out to vote for Bernie ending up voting for Trump against Hillary. It's the same thing you describe in a different way. Considering the dramatic difference between Bernie and Trump, so they just voted against her in the extreme opposite way to punish the Democrats? Yes she wasn't a good candidate, she wasn't THE CORRECT candidate, but if that is the case so we can assume there were people who voted against her because of her gender.

QuoteI've seen several interviews during the primaries and the general where middle aged and older women have said the very thing I posted above. I think it hurt us all to have allowed Clinton to get the nomination.

For any here that voted for her mainly because of her gender, wear that badge with shame.
[/quote]

It looks like actually women refused to vote for Hillary. Because she lost them. So several women in an interview could even be just a part of democrats' campaign.


:arrow: On the other hand, the amount of white people who voted for Trump -esp. white men- is a far more scary abomination and the real architects of the crime against humanity.

7 % of is black and 30 % of is Hispanic. Rest is white. Wealthy white made Trump the president.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 11, 2016, 02:17:36 PM
"... a candidate who would be better than Trump or Clinton."
Except none of the third party candidates were.

That depends on what you want in a candidate. Bernie wanted most of the same things that I want for this country. When he gave up, Jill Stein was the closest.

What do you want for the country that made Clinton such a good choice?

Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 11, 2016, 02:32:52 PM
That's not about who is a better candidate, but is a fear that it will won't work, but just divide the vote in the end and will be a gain for teh 'other' side.This happens all the time, esp. in two party sytems.

I can't really be sure of anyone who was actually out to vote for Bernie ending up voting for Trump against Hillary. It's the same thing you describe in a different way. Considering the dramatic difference between Bernie and Trump, so they just voted against her in the extreme opposite way to punish the Democrats? Yes she wasn't a good candidate, she wasn't THE CORRECT candidate, but if that is the case so we can assume there were people who voted against her because of her gender.

For any here that voted for her mainly because of her gender, wear that badge with shame.


It looks like actually women refused to vote for Hillary. Because she lost them. So several women in an interview could even be just a part of democrats' campaign.


:arrow: On the other hand, the amount of white people who voted for Trump -esp. white men- is a far more scary abomination and the real architects of the crime against humanity.

7 % of is black and 30 % of is Hispanic. Rest is white. Wealthy white made Trump the president.

A lot of people staying home that would have otherwise come out for Sanders allowed Trump to win, and those people stayed home because the democrats shit all over them.

People have to draw the line somewhere. If Clinton had won would the democrats have moved to the left or would they continue to move to the right?

We have got to stop buying into this fear based horse shit. It only leads down.

I'm sure there were people who don't want a woman president. When I was a christ nutter I briefly went to a church that strictly held the belief the woman served the man. She didn't get a job unless her husband wanted her to, she was to serve him and any other men in the house, and they were in no way supposed to have authority over men. So I don't doubt there were people who didn't vote for her because of her gender and i think that is stupid, just as stupid as her gender was the deciding factor for some people to vote for her. I didn't vote for Obama because he was black, neither did I vote for Sanders or Stein because they are white man/woman. To me they wanted a lot of the same things as I do for the country. Simple as that.

Quote from: Hurt on November 11, 2016, 02:51:35 PM
That depends on what you want in a candidate. Bernie wanted most of the same things that I want for this country. When he gave up, Jill Stein was the closest.

What do you want for the country that made Clinton such a good choice?

More of Obama would have been nice, which Clinton was closest to. Even given the ridiculous amounts of opposition he received in the House and Senate, he was one of our at least top quarter best presidents. Likewise I want a candidate with at least a shred of competency, which instantly ruled out any of the buffoons who ran for third party (Gary Johnson was a do-nothing governor, and Jill Stein is just crazy).

I'm sure a "Socialist Jew" would have been able to beat Trump. Especially since Americans still have a huge issue with the idea of the first woman president.

https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs

Quote from: Shiranu on November 11, 2016, 03:07:42 PM
More of Obama would have been nice, which Clinton was closest to. Even given the ridiculous amounts of opposition he received in the House and Senate, he was one of our at least top quarter best presidents. Likewise I want a candidate with at least a shred of competency, which instantly ruled out any of the buffoons who ran for third party (Gary Johnson was a do-nothing governor, and Jill Stein is just crazy).

That's one area where you and I disagree. Obama is republican light and not what this country needs.

I haven't seen anything to suggest Stein is crazy, what is your evidence?

Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 11, 2016, 04:45:37 PM
https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs

I fucking loved that!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-case-against-jill-stein-w436362 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-case-against-jill-stein-w436362)

-She has lost basically every election she has ever been in, at any level of the government. That in itself says alot about her. If she isn't deemed fit by more than 1.4 of the people of Massachusetts to be govenor, how can she be qualified to rule 300 million+ people?
-She was extremely excited about Brexit... until she realised it was better to not be, in which case she edited her post and never apologized. Rather she said it must be user error for seeing the post wrong.
-She was very quick to label Clinton a warhawk for approving of air operations in Syria, then sits with Putin on RT and talks about how terrible America's foreign policy is with nothing to say about Russia's terrible foreign and domestic policy.
-Asks Donald Trump to show his tax returns... while not releasing her own.
-Is a doctor and thinks that "Wifi beams are not something we should subject kids to." and egged on Anti-Vaxers and 9/11-Truthers by implying that they have any validity in their arguments.
-Picked a woman who called Obama an "Uncle Tom" and contributed to a book declaring the Paris and San Bernandino Shootings never happened and that was edited by a Holocaust denier.
-She believes "quantitative easing" would be the tool to fulfill her one main policy position, and yet cannot explain how it works... or the fact that it is not something the president is authorized to do by themselves.

A great video on the subject...



As for Obama... yes, he is Republican-lite and frankly that is the best we can have as Americans. The people have spoken, and we get Republican-lite or Republican-heavy. It sucks, but you have to work with what you got. All things considered he was great because there were very few viable candidates who could do better... the last two were Joe Biden and Al Gore.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 11, 2016, 07:31:59 PM
As for Obama... yes, he is Republican-lite and frankly that is the best we can have as Americans. The people have spoken, and we get Republican-lite or Republican-heavy. It sucks, but you have to work with what you got. All things considered he was great because there were very few viable candidates who could do better... the last two were Joe Biden and Al Gore.

I'll review the rest of what you posted shortly but OMFG, republican-light is the best we can have? That is incorrect and small minded thinking that only serves to fulfill itself.

We can do much better as demonstrated by Sanders. Your dick finger quotes around socialist jew to describe Sanders in another thread was either a sad demonstration of your thoughts of the majority of Americans or your personal feelings. He would have wiped the floor with Clinton had it been a level playing field during the primaries and certainly would have beat Trump. We likely would have seen more democrats in the house and senate due to a massive turnout of liberal democrats and independants. A lot of conservative voters who didn't want to vote for Trump would have stayed home or voted third party. I work with several conservative christians who said that very thing leading up to the election but ended up voting for Trump because they hated Clinton more.

If you aim for mediocrity that's usually what you get.

Quote-“She has lost basically every election she has ever been in, at any level of the government. That in itself says alot about her. If she isn't deemed fit by more than 1.4 of the people of Massachusetts to be govenor, how can she be qualified to rule 300 million+ people?”

How many people that vote for a particular candidate does not mean that candidate is not qualified. I’ve reviewed her qualifications and think she is much better than any republican, light or otherwise.

Quote-“She was extremely excited about Brexit... until she realised it was better to not be, in which case she edited her post and never apologized. Rather she said it must be user error for seeing the post wrong.”

From what little I’ve seen of this it looks like she wasn’t as PC as some people think she should have been and instead of clarifying in the open she swapped the write up on her website. I don’t agree with how she did it but not a disqualifier. She still approves of “Brexit” BTW. Anytime people can take control of their country from other nations is a good thing. That's how we became free, right?

Quote-“She was very quick to label Clinton a warhawk for approving of air operations in Syria, then sits with Putin on RT and talks about how terrible America's foreign policy is with nothing to say about Russia's terrible foreign and domestic policy.”

Clinton is a “warhawk” is she not? The rest is a non-story. Everyone knows the Russians are shit to their people, all of the right leaning people in this country want the same power that Putin has, including Clinton and Obama.

Quote-Asks Donald Trump to show his tax returns... while not releasing her own.

She released them, they’re on her website.

Quote-Is a doctor and thinks that "Wifi beams are not something we should subject kids to." and egged on Anti-Vaxers and 9/11-Truthers by implying that they have any validity in their arguments.

Her stance on wifi is more research is needed, she is pro vaccinations, she has a problem with pharmaceutical companies influence on the FDA, which some “Anti-Vaxers” share the same opinion. I also share that opinion. Read her own words on 9/11 http://www.jill2016.com/on_911

Quote-Picked a woman who called Obama an "Uncle Tom" and contributed to a book declaring the Paris and San Bernandino Shootings never happened and that was edited by a Holocaust denier.

Picked a woman… for what? More information is needed.

Quote-She believes "quantitative easing" would be the tool to fulfill her one main policy position, and yet cannot explain how it works... or the fact that it is not something the president is authorized to do by themselves.

She has many policy positions, student loans are just one of them. John Oliver did a huge disservice to his viewers when he did that piece. It can be done, especially if the secretary of treasury, appointed by the president and the Fed chair, nominated by the president, work towards that goal.

She is worlds better than Clinton and Obama just on policy positions alone.

Quote from: Hurt on November 11, 2016, 07:29:26 PM
I fucking loved that!

When I saw it I immediately thought of you.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 11, 2016, 03:08:18 PM
I'm sure a "Socialist Jew" would have been able to beat Trump. Especially since Americans still have a huge issue with the idea of the first woman president.

There has already been a first woman leader in other countries ... going back to Pharaoh Hatshepsut at least, 3500 years ago.  There have been Black leaders too ... also Pharaohs (from Nubia about 3000 years ago).  America isn't first in anything it is dead last compared to Egypt.

I don't think you understand Jewish politics in the US.  Most Jews today are solid Republicans ... not radical Socialists.  Not many of us would have gone for Bernie ... nor would it be necessary, since Jews are a small minority (except in NYC).  I am an exception to that rule.

Quote from: Hurt on November 11, 2016, 02:51:35 PM
That depends on what you want in a candidate. Bernie wanted most of the same things that I want for this country. When he gave up, Jill Stein was the closest.

What do you want for the country that made Clinton such a good choice?

Unfortunately, status-quo of WH incumbent (give me more Obama) didn't work for me like it might have for others ... and clearly Hillary was that continuation by other means.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 11, 2016, 04:45:37 PM
https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs

This was the most politically correct bullshit I have ever seen about the elections so far.

-Do you guys realise that the understanding advertised in this video COMPLETELY removes the responsibility of the voter; choice of the individual; people from the result of the elections?

-Do you realise that he assumes that people voted for a change even its a terrible one, while the demographics are clear in voting? ONLY 7 % black people voted for Trump as opposed to an overwhelming amount white men and women vote between certain ages? How doesn't this tell anything to anyone?

-Do you realise that Trump actually OFFERED a renewed hold on to the OLD America before Obama, let alone offer a change, but something against that change that has been already going on in the last decade AND succeeded by playing into the identity politics of that OLD REPUBLICAN AMERICA? Every white men in the media hated any SJW or anti-racist group and they all collectivelly backlashed to it. Calling it a regressive left bullshit.

-Do you realise that Trump actually offered NOTHING to his voters, literally NOTHING?

-Do you realise that the man in the video presenting a huge contradiction with saying all that^ and stating that Sanders it would be different?!


Oh god, how do people actually swallow this bullshit? Give Americans an angry mainstream rant thrown in British English about politics, they forget everything about what actually happened.

People VOTED for Trump. And BEFORE that THEY VOTED FOR HILLARY. They Haven't VOTED for Sanders. They would never have voted for Sanders to win. If it was Sanders VS Trump the result would be the same.


I also realised in this couple of days that people have a very distorted, crude views of 'racism and sexism' in frame of these elections. They think it is something like the caricaturistic villains in movies, but never ordinary people, I suppose. Clearly the idea is that people actually are aware if they are racists or sexists and than not, also that they do not get affected by the years of toxic media campaigns directed by a few media companies. LOL

Oh yeah America is such a place out of human culture that no White people got affected by any of the years on going migrants bullshit, anti-SJW and anti-racist groups bullshit, all that media promotion about end of the White America hype AND especially never Trump's campaign even though the only thing was put forward is a toxic identity politics.

Democrats go on fooling themselves with the same bullshit, Trump is getting the second term for sure.

"Do you realise that Trump actually offered NOTHING to his voters, literally NOTHING?"

How is that better than being offered a false something?  I don't think your observation is new ...

It seems that Obama allowed himself to be used as a projector for D hopes also ... even though he actually governed as an R.

I think you are too meta-meta-narrative ... ultimately all politicians are the same, and all human transactions are the same if one is sufficiently "meta".

Quote from: Baruch on November 12, 2016, 09:44:14 AM
"Do you realise that Trump actually offered NOTHING to his voters, literally NOTHING?"

How is that better than being offered a false something?  I don't think your observation is new ...

I didn't say it was. I am talking about the man in the video in the context he provides.

QuoteIt seems that Obama allowed himself to be used as a projector for D hopes also ... even though he actually governed as an R.

I think you are too meta-meta-narrative ... ultimately all politicians are the same, and all human transactions are the same if one is sufficiently "meta".

Err...Dems actually defended the exact opposite of this common known fact in practice as an excuse for voting for Trump against Hillary. The important part was 'against Hillary'. Trump is as principled, ethical and uncorrupt as if russian mafia fucked yakuza and had an orange baby on the pill. What false promises you are talking about, Baruch?

And it also contradicts with your first statement. Hillary would be a mainstream, ordinary president. If she was a man, being corrupt and usual scandals would hurt anyone a lot less.

I don't believe Trump's reign will trigger any awakening or a 'reboot' for dems. It's a delusion. And on top of that he can destroy everything. I'd rather recognise Trump as what it is the holding on to dream of the white America, instead of some hope of pink fantasy that will never happen. Either truth or happiness...Never both.

"I didn't say it was. I am talking about the man in the video in the context he provide". ... I got that, you are more interesting than the guy in the video.

Feminist ... has to work twice as hard as a man, to be considered half as good, even in political corruption?  Cry me a river, baby ;-)

I don't vote for ordinary mainstream Presidential candidates, never have ... others may do so.  I didn't have it out for Hillary as a woman, but as an ordinary mainstream Presidential candidate (an R hiding under a D rug in fact).  I also voted against her choice of husband ... unforgivable in a candidate of either sex.  Would I vote for a virtuous Bill Clinton where Hillary is the slut instead?  No way Jose!  There is only so much Caligula I can stand.

Quote from: Baruch on November 12, 2016, 01:13:22 PM
"I didn't say it was. I am talking about the man in the video in the context he provide". ... I got that, you are more interesting than the guy in the video.

Feminist ... has to work twice as hard as a man, to be considered half as good, even in political corruption?  Cry me a river, baby ;-)

I don't vote for ordinary mainstream Presidential candidates, never have ... others may do so.  I didn't have it out for Hillary as a woman, but as an ordinary mainstream Presidential candidate (an R hiding under a D rug in fact).  I also voted against her choice of husband ... unforgivable in a candidate of either sex.  Would I vote for a virtuous Bill Clinton where Hillary is the slut instead?  No way Jose!  There is only so much Caligula I can stand.

Baruch, again, there is an idea marketed in the video on why Trump won. And that is the context I am talking about. Not about your choices or sex fantasies, dear. :)

Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 12, 2016, 01:31:17 PM
Baruch, again, there is an idea marketed in the video on why Trump won. And that is the context I am talking about. Not about your choices or sex fantasies, dear. :)

Sorry toots ... unlike Trump or Arnold S ... I don't go for younger women ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on November 12, 2016, 01:49:21 PM
Sorry toots ... unlike Trump or Arnold S ... I don't go for younger women ;-)

I meant Hillary...*runs

Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 12, 2016, 06:27:10 AM

This was the most politically correct bullshit I have ever seen about the elections so far.

-Do you guys realise that the understanding advertised in this video COMPLETELY removes the responsibility of the voter; choice of the individual; people from the result of the elections?

-Do you realise that he assumes that people voted for a change even its a terrible one, while the demographics are clear in voting? ONLY 7 % black people voted for Trump as opposed to an overwhelming amount white men and women vote between certain ages? How doesn't this tell anything to anyone?

-Do you realise that Trump actually OFFERED a renewed hold on to the OLD America before Obama, let alone offer a change, but something against that change that has been already going on in the last decade AND succeeded by playing into the identity politics of that OLD REPUBLICAN AMERICA? Every white men in the media hated any SJW or anti-racist group and they all collectivelly backlashed to it. Calling it a regressive left bullshit.

-Do you realise that Trump actually offered NOTHING to his voters, literally NOTHING?

-Do you realise that the man in the video presenting a huge contradiction with saying all that^ and stating that Sanders it would be different?!


Oh god, how do people actually swallow this bullshit? Give Americans an angry mainstream rant thrown in British English about politics, they forget everything about what actually happened.

People VOTED for Trump. And BEFORE that THEY VOTED FOR HILLARY. They Haven't VOTED for Sanders. They would never have voted for Sanders to win. If it was Sanders VS Trump the result would be the same.


I also realised in this couple of days that people have a very distorted, crude views of 'racism and sexism' in frame of these elections. They think it is something like the caricaturistic villains in movies, but never ordinary people, I suppose. Clearly the idea is that people actually are aware if they are racists or sexists and than not, also that they do not get affected by the years of toxic media campaigns directed by a few media companies. LOL

Oh yeah America is such a place out of human culture that no White people got affected by any of the years on going migrants bullshit, anti-SJW and anti-racist groups bullshit, all that media promotion about end of the White America hype AND especially never Trump's campaign even though the only thing was put forward is a toxic identity politics.

Democrats go on fooling themselves with the same bullshit, Trump is getting the second term for sure.

Perhaps his emotionalism, vulgar language and state of undress distracted you from his point: Hillary Clinton was the wrong choice for the Democratic candidate. I'm not arguing your points so let's set those aside for the moment and I'll explain why as a Democrat I agree with him that Clinton was the wrong choice.

Back in 2008 when Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama there was a narrative that Clinton would be the next president. Obama broke the racial barrier and next Clinton would break the glass ceiling-- this was her turn. During Obama's eight year administration she beefed up her experience, networked and prepared her campaign. Hillary and the leaders of the Democratic party made it understood that she was the candidate and no one else should bother running. I mean, Hillary Clinton IS Tracy Flick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u3GAQgZpww

However people started using the word "coronation", which didn't play well, and so Bernie Sanders entered the race-- a prop to give Democrats the illusion of choice. But there was never a choice. I marveled at the naiveté of Bernie supporters believing that choosing a Democratic party candidate was an egalitarian process. The Democratic leaders were genuinely surprised that Sanders had such passionate support, and it changed some of Clinton's positions, but she was their candidate. Sanders also made Democrats finally wake up and say to each other, "Umm... Did you want Clinton? No. Did you? Not really." Unfortunately it was too late.

So now the Democratic leaders have given us Clinton, who looks great on paper, but the problem is few people actually like her. I believe part of the discontent is sexism but she also has serious things working against her. She is the ultimate insider when the Left and the Right are unhappy with the status quo, which is why Sanders and Trump elicited such passion. Her calculated personality and machinations, which I find endearing, turn most people off and played right into Trump's unfiltered, anti-PC, "tell it like it is" appeal. When Clinton feels pressured to "tell it like it is" her response is to call Trump supporters "deplorables" which confirms what everyone thinks about her-- she's an elite snob who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with her is a rube. Even if Trump supporter are deplorable, racist, xenophobic mouth-breathers SHE can't say that, she is not a populist candidate and she can't pull off Trump's shtick. Positions she thinks are liberal are perceived as moderate by actual liberals. She claims she is a feminist but her attacks on her husband's mistresses were terrible and it was transparent she was protecting her investment in him. I wish she had just said, "My thanks to all the women who have fucked Bill because frankly I have better things to do"-- THAT would have been a feminist response. Benghazi and the emails were just normal political issues. The big problem was Clinton was an unlikable, faux-liberal insider of suspect character who was offering politics as usual in a polarized social climate against a populist opponent who changed the game.

I am not arguing Sanders would have been more successful but that Democrats were lazy and should not have just accepted it was Clinton's turn prior to the primary.

Thank you, GSOgymrat. But in the end Sanders has never been a winning card. Actually, I think the emotionalism caused people to see him as the real exit they missed back in the path looking back to him in a lime light. So highly likely the result would have been the same. People punished democrats -actually themselves, because they 'chose' to hate a typical candidate for bullshit reasons. This is not different than what I have been saying. And if that typical candidate was a man, negative traits wouldn't poke the eyes so much, people would be able to dismiss them as 'eh in the end just a politician, the devil I know, other one is catastrophie'.

She was so demonised, I don't think Americans saw Clinton as an ordinary politician at all. Which exactly she is. (For the record, I never saw her as a feminist, may be you are aware I never even wrote anything related to that but that is a personal opinion.)

My objection to the this approach is seeing this result as something caused by one factor, but nothing people actually decided themselves. 'They did it, not us' kinda thing. Removing the responsiblity from the voters. Actually, I will go further and say this is an obvious trait of this culture. Nobody questions why nobody takes a responsibility for something went bad. Like as if it all just happens by itself. An accident. More than that defending a harmful choice with bullshit reasons because you know, at that point the people suddenly become 'individuals' with choices. Ignoring people's choices and very simple, deliberate things that shaped those choices made without thinking; out of bitter, childish spite. Like lethal identity politics Trump made and used so cunningly through people who actually have screamed their heads off about being against any identity politics. That's the impression video conveys.

The other thing is, considering that this catastrophie will not cause an awakening in democrats -really, do not expect anything like that or you'll be crushed worse- and that there is a lot of things at stake now, people actually chose to gamble with their country to punish a party, actually punished themselves and voted for purely emotional reasons.

Unfortunately, this was not a popularity contest.

Why do I think democrats cannot reform themselves is that because they need to compete with the republicans. There is no chance for a second party that cannot deal a game out for that tight rope that has existed between these two parties since. You cannot create something from scratch or even change it.

The possible irony coming in the future is that after Trump, it could be so bad that people will jump to vote for a democrat WHOEVER they find available and highly likely he will be WORSE THAN Hillary Clinton. The drowning man will clucth at a straw. She won't look so bad then.

I sincerely hope that I am completely wrong and just being emotional about all this. That would make me happy.

Quote from: Shiranu on November 11, 2016, 03:08:18 PM
I'm sure a "Socialist Jew" would have been able to beat Trump. Especially since Americans still have a huge issue with the idea of the first woman president.

Only 6 percent of Americans say they would not vote for a Jew. How do you figure Americans have a huge issue with the idea of a woman president? Only 7 percent say they would not vote for a woman. Are you basing this on Hillary not winning? Hillary losing means just about as much as Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin losing would mean. Hillary was the worst candidate probably in history, who got less votes from women this time around than Obama did last time around, and lost to a sexual predator who was outspent three to one. Elizabeth Warren is a woman who probably would have succeeded against Trump, but the Dems decided to rig it because it was Hillary's turn and Warren was told not to run. Tulsi Gabbard may have been able to hang with Trump, but Hillary banned her from the debates. Hillary is the only reason that a woman had no chance this time around.

QuotePicked a woman who called Obama an "Uncle Tom"

What's wrong with that? That's not like calling someone an uncle tom for speaking "white". That's calling him out for not being pro-black enough or caring enough about trying to help black people.

In the 1930s, 1/2 of Americans were anti-Semitic.  Today 1/4 of Americans are anti-Semitic.  This has been driven by the improvement of Jewish American prosperity, the move of socialist Jewish immigrants to Jewish Republicans (Barry Goldwater is Jewish, so is Bill Gates).  Some was driven back then do to the Holocaust, but most people today don't know what that was ... today inertia reigns.

So I don't know if it is 7% who would reject Bernie because he is Jewish, but it is something less than 25%.  If Bernie was a Jewish banker, his candidacy would be less viable ... 48% of American billionaires are Jewish.

Wow, so much to go over...

I'm fairly certain Sanders would have beaten Trump handily. Think back to the primaries, Sanders started out being relatively unknown to the majority of Americans, 60 points down I think it was. As his message was heard, and verified that he held the same positions for over thirty years, more and more people supported him. Here was a candidate that was truly on the side of the American people, as opposed to a, how was it put, "a mainstream, ordinary president". Isn't it striking, the difference in those two?

He did much better in the states that allowed all people to vote. Remember New York? That election was held in April and it was a closed election. People would have had to register as democrat the previous October when Hillary was 19 points ahead of Sanders. Sanders held a rally and had a record breaking crowd. But not all of those people could vote for him. But they could have voted in the general. And almost every poll in 2016 had Sanders beating Trump.

Would those people who said hold your nose and vote for the democrat so Trump doesn't win vote for Sanders? Trump and Sanders had a few points that overlapped; trade, money in politics, focus on the U.S. more and other countries less. I'm sure more than a few people voted for Trump because of those, people who would have much rather voted for Sanders.

Obama, Clinton, Debbie WS and others made the current mess. It was their doing to stack the deck for Clinton. They broke their own rules and put the weaker candidate up against Trump and lost. It is not my responsibility to clean it up and reward their shitty behavior. If they don't learn the right lesson from this then they do not get my vote, and probably not the vote from a lot of other people.

I voted for Clinton because she was mos qualified and experienced.   If I had wanted the smartest person available not experienced in elected office, I would have voted for myself.

Quote from: Cavebear on November 13, 2016, 02:27:39 AM
I voted for Clinton because she was mos qualified and experienced.   If I had wanted the smartest person available not experienced in elected office, I would have voted for myself.

Yes, absolutely, between Hillary and Donald, Hillary was more experienced.  But that was her very weakness ;-(  And no, I have never considered sociopaths to be smart ... a smart person doesn't run for office.  A smart person doesn't support democracy either.  Fortunately, I am smart enough to reject sociopaths, but not smart enough to reject democracy.