First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply US Presidential Race: Is it OK if I get a little excited this year?
13107 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

lorreen wrote:
Hillary Clinton


she approved the War on Iraq, which dragged US into a big mess. she's also a bit of a pyscho - she laughed when she heard a criminal was lynched to death. lynched. just saying....
104536 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / You, Knighted States
Offline
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16
Have you met President Funny Valentine? Noone is more dedicated to America than he is.

runec 
36053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

theYchromosome wrote:
Plus, I can't see how voting against your principles can be seen as anything but throwing your vote away. A vote for a throw-away candidate seems to me just as much a throw-away vote.


Voting against your principles is an American tradition. You're not suppose to vote *for* someone you're suppose to vote against someone. >.>

Thus is the problem with the two party system. Not voting risks being the same as voting for the greater of the two evils presented. You think the majority of people in a given state actually voted for some of the stump humping lunatics in congress? Heck no, its just that for some reason Democrats can't be bothered with mid term elections.

Heck, barely over half the country even shows up for general elections.




15989 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16

theYchromosome wrote:
If you're asking who encourages the best ideas for American Citizens, then I say John McAfee. Hands Down.

Fuck that. There's nothing about the two-party system that can't be changed with voters, and in order for that to happen, you have to vote outside the two parties. What if the 2 party system is, to my estimation, worse for american citizens than either of the two candidates? How should I vote then?
When was the time they where better?



BlueOni wrote:
All I could see was GJ..GJ..GJ
I got to say GJ
Ejanss 
16823 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16

namealreadytaken wrote:


lorreen wrote:
Hillary Clinton


she approved the War on Iraq, which dragged US into a big mess. she's also a bit of a pyscho - she laughed when she heard a criminal was lynched to death. lynched. just saying....


Still, even not knowing the context, that's still preferable to :
"Hey, some crooks deserve to be lynched--I'm not saying they ALL do, maybe there's some drug-user with kids and a family or something, 'cause, y'know, I'm an easygoing guy, and we wanna be clear that we're gonna have a great administration for everybody, just sayin', if you're a crook, MAYBE you're gonna end up lynched. It's gonna happen. And I'm not gonna say what's wrong with that--I don't lynch 'em personally, but if they're gonna come here, and other people aren't gonna be happy that these people came here and decided to become crooks, these people with ropes gotta express themselves too--I'm not gonna step on anyone's expression about what they think is best for this country!"

Remember, the election is a Job Interview. And if you are the Human Resources Coordinator for an opening in the upper-management slot of a major billion-dollar corporation, you are going to be interviewing NOTHING BUT total shallow amoral asshats, because nobody else ever applies for the job.
It will eventually come down to the Lesser of Two Shallow Amoral Asshats, but it's on you if the job isn't filled. So you know how to nitpick the good and bad points, and remind yourself that your own job depends on the right enough person having theirs.
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16

runec wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:
Plus, I can't see how voting against your principles can be seen as anything but throwing your vote away. A vote for a throw-away candidate seems to me just as much a throw-away vote.


Voting against your principles is an American tradition. You're not suppose to vote *for* someone you're suppose to vote against someone. >.>

Thus is the problem with the two party system. Not voting risks being the same as voting for the greater of the two evils presented. You think the majority of people in a given state actually voted for some of the stump humping lunatics in congress? Heck no, its just that for some reason Democrats can't be bothered with mid term elections.

Heck, barely over half the country even shows up for general elections.



Heck, then I'm the most traditional american there is. After all, I'm voting against two people.

Oddly enough, I think one reason so few people show up for even the big elections is maniackillah's sentiment that you should either vote for one of the two parties, or stay at home. They bitch about not having a say, and then voluntarily give it up. I'll never fucking understand it. If politicians are all fine, upstanding people, then we get a fair shake, and simply vote the person that shares our views. And if they're parasitic leeches feeding off of whatever's popular and sounds nice, then they'll change their views to whatever the voters want. If you're not voting, then you're fucked either way. The best thing about democracy isn't that you can choose who rules you, it's that you can change what rules your rulers make. You only get that by voting for an ideology.
13596 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / McDonough
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

theYchromosome wrote:



However, whether you agree or disagree with their views, surely you're aware that the presumptive nominees for the two major parties this year (Trump and Clinton) are possibly the most disliked candidates in recent history (probably the history of this country). With so many people so against both of the other candidates, I simply can't help but get excited for the Libertarian candidacy this year. This might be the most successful 3rd party run in US history.


This would be great, if more than a third of the country knew that more than 2 parties even existed. Voters have confined themselves to a "lesser of two evils" mindset and won't even consider voting for a third party because "there's no chance they could win" (Failing to realize that this very mindset is the reason)
14725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16
Economically I tend to lean toward less regulation, but there are a few problem areas that usually pop up with ridiculous colluding to reduce competition. To ensure the consumers have a choice in these areas there needs to be some slight regulation or at the very least direct competition created by the government. (I'm looking at you ISPs...)

I recently saw a study in the UK that had people complaining about their internet speeds with their slowest city averaging 12.5mbps... Are you kidding me? An America that averages that would be a dream compared to the shit tier internet we have now.



Anyway, I do believe there are multiple ways to get things done. My loyalty lies with whoever I feel can get the job done no matter the party.
13596 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / McDonough
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

lorreen wrote:

I voted Libertarian once. (I think there was even one election long ago where I voted for some other type of third party/independent presidential candidate).

I think our system would benefit from having more than two very dominant parties, so throwing a vote to a third party, any third party, as a way of showing a tiny bit of that sentiment seems okay with me.
...


Finally someone gets it!

Every time I try to explain this to one of my friends or family they always look at me like I'm nuts and then ignore me for the rest of the political conversation.
17811 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

saprobe wrote:

Have you met President Funny Valentine? Noone is more dedicated to America than he is.



Who is this Fabulous Creature? I'd vote for him
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16

GreatLordBalzak wrote:

Economically I tend to lean toward less regulation, but there are a few problem areas that usually pop up with ridiculous colluding to reduce competition. To ensure the consumers have a choice in these areas there needs to be some slight regulation or at the very least direct competition created by the government. (I'm looking at you ISPs...)

I recently saw a study in the UK that had people complaining about their internet speeds with their slowest city averaging 12.5mbps... Are you kidding me? An America that averages that would be a dream compared to the shit tier internet we have now.



Anyway, I do believe there are multiple ways to get things done. My loyalty lies with whoever I feel can get the job done no matter the party.


Oddly enough, you've hit upon one of the main points that separates the minimalist wing of the party from the anarchist wing of the party. That's a whole other can of worms that I've discussed way too much with people that do claim to be Libertarians. Whether or not there should be little regulation or no regulation is a hot topic among Libertarians, but pretty much all of us agree that there's too much of it right now. But there's a sizable number that are all for regulation, for example, to prevent monopolies and other claimed 'failures of capitalism.' You're not necessarily against Libertarians on that count.
Ejanss 
16823 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16

Southern55 wrote:
This would be great, if more than a third of the country knew that more than 2 parties even existed. Voters have confined themselves to a "lesser of two evils" mindset and won't even consider voting for a third party because "there's no chance they could win" (Failing to realize that this very mindset is the reason)


Well, usually it's because the Libertarian is the only third-party candidate, and when pressed on hard facts of the issues, they come off so naive, self-serving, and academically abstracted away from the REAL nuts and bolts problems of whatever windmill they're tilting at, they never attract as much of a crowd to begin with.
(And you thought Bernie was pie-in-the-sky!)

Every time a Libertarian candidate like Mike Gravel tries to go Democratic in the debates, he comes off as a reasonable guy, and then out comes "We're losing the War on Drugs...", and turn out the lights, the Third Party's over.

(And does anyone even remember who the Green Party candidate was the year they locked the door to keep Ralph Nader from running again?
I only remember Ross Perot's campaign from Dana Carvey's SNL routines, and that "ninja" thing.)


Nogara-san wrote:


saprobe wrote:



Who is this Fabulous Creature? I'd vote for him


Yeah! Uma Thurman for president! (Nah, she's gotten too weird after hanging around Quentin.)
dezkai 
13051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Also voted for Johnson.

Going for Trump in 2016, Bernie got screwed but also dug himself a hole by being a racist and a war monger.


Yes, Bernie was a very disappointing opposition candidate. Shot himself in the foot with that corporate message.

If only he took a leaf out of Hillary's book and took on some progressive views - he might have been able to fix his abysmal performance with the youth.
104536 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / You, Knighted States
Offline
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16

Nogara-san wrote:


saprobe wrote:

Have you met President Funny Valentine? Noone is more dedicated to America than he is.



Who is this Fabulous Creature? I'd vote for him


He's from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure Part 7: Steel Ball Run. And before you check no, Part 7 hasn't been animated yet. The gif is from the All Star Battle video game. No less fabulous for it, though.
runec 
36053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16

theYchromosome wrote:
Heck, then I'm the most traditional american there is. After all, I'm voting against two people.


No, you're voting for your principles. That's category 2: Risking the greater evil in a general. -.-

The problem as it stands is that Republicans don't actually have enough voters in the country as a whole to win at a Federal level ( and a state level in some cases ). They make up the difference by relying on shit like voter ID laws and other dubious tactics to shave off the margin. While appealing constantly to America's most reliable turn out voters: Old angry white people. The GOP, by its very nature is literally going to die out over the next couple decades and they know it. Between their voters dying of old age and shifting American racial and religious demographics they're fucked. If it weren't for voter low voter turn out, gerrymandering and voter disenfranchising they would already be fucked.

But that's ultimately the kicker. They want you to stay home and not vote. It helps them make up the margin. You think they've spent a decade raking Hillary over the coals because they actually give a shit about Benghazi, her emails, etc etc etc? Fuck no. Its completely to shave a few points off her poll numbers. Which it has. Its all about margins for them.

The risk right now is that the GOP has been doubling down on lunacy instead of accepting the world is different and looking to change with it. We're witnessing their last great gasp of abject stupidity play out on a national, even global level. Even if they actually win the WH this is likely the end of the GOP as a viable federal party for years.

So on one hand, yes, if they go down in flames it does open the door for a new party or a more sane, moderate GOP to step in. But on the other hand, there's no sense sitting this one out or voting third party yet and giving them even the slightest chance to burn the house down on their way out. There's also no sense in having them lose by a small margin and convincing them any of this abject fuckery is still a good idea to keep running with.

They need to be kicked to the curb by the American people. Much as they are being kicked to the curb by the march of modern society. Only then will they perhaps fark off and re-evaluate themselves.

That goes for BernieBros(tm) in the "Well if Bernie loses I ain't voting at all" category. Grow up, shut up, hold your nose, down a few shots of tequila, whatever you need to do and get out and vote for Hillary. Take a shower afterwards if it helps. Taking your ball and going home because you didn't get your way regardless of what happens to the country is just being petulant. If you give a shit about America, vote.

Otherwise don't sit around whining for the next 20-30 years as the US tries to undo the damage from a single term of Emperor Cheeto.


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.