First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
I hate to admit it but I rather not vote for anyone for this coming election
VeggyZ 
2624 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 10/31/16 , edited 10/31/16

ninjitsuko wrote:


VeggyZ wrote:

If your only source for information is the US news - you should start by watching news from elsewhere, and then look into some things yourself - there are a lot of very intelligent people researching these subjects and to dismiss them all as conspiracy theorists is beyond offensive and foolish.


I've long given up on US media for any sort of "objective-subjective" information (by this, I mean any information that we'd deem objective on a social level, but still subjective to the observer/viewer). The issue is that when it comes down to what I've labelled/classified as "conspiracy theories" - they all originate from the same bias and the same insight. Let's look at Project Veritas, for example. James O'Keefe is a conservative individual who focuses on that side of the political spectrum; thus, there may be a hint of truth in what he publishes - but articles on Project Veritas all lean towards conservatism as a whole (anti-"SJW", anti-"big government", pro-"second amendment" [quotations due to interpretation of it], etc). While I've read most of the articles and listened to a few videos/recordings on Project Veritas (when another, like yourself, had linked me), I still only take it as a grain of truth (rather than "the" truth).

That, VeggyZ, is what I mean by "conspiracy theories". When you start to take a hint of truth as fact you begin to lose the little objectivity that you've got left. Is there voter fraud? Yes, that's a known issue. The severity of it may be exaggerated from various sources, underestimated in others... but the "fact" remains that it's an issue of variating degree (depending on source reporting on it). The problem is that we, as humans, are prone to gravitate towards those who agree with us (as an individual). That's why threads like this end up having posts that try to put in question the OP's narrative because they believe their perspective is the right one. It extends to an individual poster (i.e. myself, yourself, and so on) as well.


What about a thousand hints of truth combined? There's so much pointing towards the globalist conspiracy - are you saying you dismiss it because of the bias of the people involved, because they are arguing their point? Everyone has that bias, whether they align themselves to the right or left, or not at all. As far as project veritas goes - when DNC big-wigs are flat out saying "They realize this is illegal, but we want to win" and spell out how - exactly - they intend to steal the election - it's more than a hint of truth. That's a criminal conspiracy through and through, and the clearest evidence you'll ever have of it is the words straight from the heads. There is no more substantial evidence possible - until it's all done and we've no way out and no other choice, that is. They've admitted to paying mentally ill people $1500 to start violence at trump rallies. Does the motivation behind O'Keefes investigation somehow discredit what he found out through it? It shouldn't matter what you identify as, when one side is using literal mob tactics and admitting to it.

I don't identify is a conservative, or a liberal, a republican or a democrat, and until the last year or so I have not really cared much about politics and elections. I've paid attention to them, but I choose my candidates based on my own sense of right and wrong - even then I have my own personal bias. There is no truly objective information from any investigation or individual - and that's as natural as having the initial motive to begin said investigation. That doesn't discount what can be gleaned from that information regardless of what motivates the people who gave us that information.

And yes, voter fraud is nothing new. It has however become a much more prevalent problem than it was in the past, even moreso than Bush's 4 recounts in florida. The fact that Hillary can break so many laws over her career and still be allowed to run is absurd enough - but the fact the media is saying the two candidates are neck-and-neck when Hillary / Kaine's rallies draw a fraction of the people Trump / Pence rallies do should worry everyone who actually believes the system should be fair.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding and you weren't being dismissive in calling those arguments conspiracy theories. I understand why you're calling it conspiracy theory - but the inclination of the side it's in favor of shouldn't even matter when it's about illegally winning an election, instigating violence, keeping a nation in the dark as to the situation of the rest of the world, and starting wars we have no business starting - when that conflict could very well kill us all. That's not to mention all the other underhanded things that directly undermine our safety and security. The fact is, every whistleblower gets labelled something along the lines of a conspiracy theorist and that shouldn't be enough for people to stop listening to what they say - it doesn't make any of the information within any less legitimate.

I guess I listen to both sides in an argument, or I try my best to. I decide what I believe based on the sum of those, not whether it's a conservative or liberal point of view. It just so happens that one of these sides doesn't have anything to back it up, and the other has substantial. I could give a shit less about affiliation, but what I do care about is the slavery we should all be able to see coming. At this point, there is no more money left to give - and I know I'm not the only one who is being held near rock bottom Taxes are increasing dramatically, so is cost of living - and the problem is that effect is being artificially produced with that intent by people whose only motivator is greed. That's what I care about, and why I lend an ear to people our authorities label as conspiracy theorists or crazies.
14777 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/31/16 , edited 10/31/16

qualeshia3 wrote:
Anyway, if I do choose someone, I will hate myself forever and never let it go. Does this make me a bad person? Am I being silly for feeling this way? Should I get over it and vote?

Be honest!

Yes, yes and hell-yes.

Y'know, it seems so long ago--twelve years, in fact--that I had to vote for John Kerry. JOHN F***IN' BIOLOGY-TEACHER FUTURE SECRETARY-OF-STATE KERRY. For PRESIDENT. I'd vote for Al Gore again today, but think it was fun voting for Kerry?...Well, do ya?
And why? Because no sane human being on the planet was going to vote George W. Bush a second term.
(And as for his dad, Michael Dukakis rocked the vote, but that was back in the days when the Red Sox couldn't win a Series either. )

It's just four years. If you can get through four seasons of Game of Thrones or Doctor Who, you can get through four years for real, as a small price for not giving the nuclear codes to a raving narcissist paranoid temper-tantrum three-yo. for a brief interim.
If you're going to make the corny "Enough time for WWIII to happen, bwah-bwahhh!" punchline so we can all admire the narcissism of the Cynic, consider it already have been made ad nauseum by this point. When cooler heads prevail, Campaign '20 will already have started, and then we can all vote for Joe Biden like normal people. Suck it up, you'll live.
If you can't vote for someone in good conscience, vote AGAINST someone in good conscience. It's still doing something. Candidates spend years, sleepless nights and millions of dollars trying to get your vote--You can make them cry by giving it to someone else, but don't even offer it, and they won't even know your name, and you will become the forgotten tree that falls in the forest.

I'll quote from one brilliant blog on the subject--
My own, from next Monday's post (yeah, I write these things ahead of time), so can't link it yet:


Nobody--I repeat, NOBODY--will give rattus tucchus uno if you try to show off your Righteous Anger With the System by saying "I don't like either of them, I'm staying home, so there!" That's like protesting the Atlantic Ocean by refusing to drink a glass of water.
If you're going to be a smug self-righteous jerk, at least be a jerk and do something that will have some actual effect.


And since the topic of the blog is fighting the problems of the current movie/TV/disk industry, I tried to keep the get-out-and-vote motivation on topic:

We've got it easy in our country. Our politicians aren't like Hollywood studio executives, in that we can vote them out of office as easily as we can put them in:

No politician brags about being a "shark", or that they live by the laws of their own "jungle".

No politician is so dismissive of domestic trade that he shrugs "Hey, if US customers won't buy our goods, just make all our industries to sell to China, they'll buy anything."

Our politicians are not self-styled gangster-boss dictators who set themselves up in private dominions answerable to no one, free to use as much propaganda and cooked numbers as they can spin to convince the people of what they "should" think, and who gloat over their elite status far above us poor five-figure-salaried peasants, and their ability--their traditional pride and duty, in fact--to lie, cheat and hustle their rivals for personal marketplace gain as they kill-or-be-killed to keep their jobs.
Okay, Donald Trump, maybe, but that's because he has the same corporate business-CEO background as said studio execs, and doesn't know how our little "democracy" thing works...Where those in charge don't get to indulge themselves, and do have two-hundred-year-old higher political authority to answer their actions to.

And in politics as well as business, what you don't know can hurt you: In the end, democracy gives everyone a voice, and either way, someone's going to get a rude awakening in their ear. All it takes is for one person to speak up, and enough One Persons to be a People.

If we can stop one politician's dream of building a wall, we can stop a studio's dream of building one movie into an eight-film "Franchise". If we can stop a war from killing innocent people overseas, we can stop the war Warner is waging to kill innocent Blu-ray disks. If we can change the problems in our country, we can change the problems in our movies and TV industries...How hard could it be?


...Just one lone patriot.


MysticGon wrote:

Yeah getting your news from U.S. only sources will give you this...



I suppose that's better than "Fox News: Dying Hillary shouts 'I'm comin', Elizabeth Warren!'"
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/31/16

Dogempire wrote:

1. I'm pretty sure these presidential candidates are the most unpopular in U.S. history, so not really. Both of these candidates have obvious flaws that intelligent voters would have seen and decided to elect someone else.
2. Not really, it's like choosing to be killed by a gun or a knife, sure one might be less suffering, but you're getting killed either way.
3. If you want, I mean you could cancel out a stupid person's vote, but I don't really think it's worth voting unless you live in a state that could swing either way. My state, Oklahoma, will vote republican like it always has, so I don't see a point in voting since my choice is Trump anyways.

My main issue with democracy is that stupid people elect stupid representatives, as seen by this election. I kind of wish voting was a bit harder to gain access to, but eh, I guess that's the price of freedom.

Plus honestly, this election year disgusts me, people rarely pay attention to the actual policies of the candidates and care more about who's a worse person; Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? You see conservative news outlets praise Trump and insult Hillary, and liberal news outlets insult Trump and praise Hillary and it's gotten to the point I don't even care about what the media says because I'm not listening to something so biased as a source of information.

Anyways, stop focusing on the character of the candidates and focus on their policies instead, and maybe that'll help clear your doubts.

....Oh wait, Hillary wants to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria that will get us into war with Russia and Trump wants to build a wall that will cost ~$40 billion(?) and cost a ton to maintain while not doing much to stop illegal immigrants.


See, because we're being screwed so hard, I prefer to compare it to an incurable form of syphilis and AIDS.

But, hey, I like the way you think.
19563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / NYC Metro Area
Offline
Posted 10/31/16
I know plenty of people who are writing in Bernie Sanders, so if you hate both Trump and Clinton there are other ways to voice your frustration.
614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 10/31/16
What I tell people - when I let anything slip - is that voting isn't some sacred act. It does not forever link you to agreeing with all the polices of the person you voted for, it doesn't mean you're good or evil for voting for somebody, and it isn't a betrayal of democracy or the Constitution if you can't vote for someone you agree with. It's a flawed system in which we happen to have the power to choose between flawed leaders.

I think electing Hillary Clinton is like giving the keys to a huge corruption machine to the best driver in the world. She'll put the keys in the ignition and turn them. I think electing Donald Trump is like asking an angry pack of 12-year-olds to drive a single machine. They will run people over, crash, and eventually explode - if they manage not to just blow the thing up to begin with. And this is why I'm voting for Hillary: corruption in overdrive will suck, but it will be orderly. And we will have sane governance with at least some principles I can get behind. Even if I can get behind some of Trump's principles as well, he would be chaos.

Agree with that or not, we all know that no third party candidate will win (I doubt that voting third-party will even give them any influence; it's never happened before). We happen to have the right to choose the form of the destructor, so I think we should use it.
14777 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/31/16 , edited 10/31/16

auroraloose wrote:

What I tell people - when I let anything slip - is that voting isn't some sacred act. It does not forever link you to agreeing with all the polices of the person you voted for, it doesn't mean you're good or evil for voting for somebody, and it isn't a betrayal of democracy or the Constitution if you can't vote for someone you agree with. It's a flawed system in which we happen to have the power to choose between flawed leaders.


IOW, it's like choosing the Elvis stamp--
Yes, the entire country will see the results, and you'll probably be embarrassed if you tell people you voted for the 60's-Vegas Elvis when sensible people voted for the 50's-Jailhouse one, but hey, it's only going to be around for a couple years, and we were all asked to choose.

(Of course, if you say you chose to vote for Trump, everyone will immediately think you're a redneck Nazi or that you're tragically gullible, but that's an isolated exception, and not USUALLY the case with elections in most years.
614 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 10/31/16 , edited 10/31/16
Oh, I should say: I don't think it's bad for you not to vote. That's perfectly fine, and I've considered it myself: the idea that any of us actually knows what is best for society, or what will bring about the best outcome for the country, is really absurd. I don't trust myself to come up with the right answer. But all the same, we don't have to be brilliant - or even at all informed - to vote. Sometimes I wonder now if I'm a monarchist: I'd be all for Queen Bey.

But I do think it's a little silly to hate yourself for voting for someone, because voting for someone doesn't forever stamp you as approving of all their policies.

gsm642 
1427 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/31/16
I rather have Sara Palin run for president again at this point anyone but these two including having Obama as king of the usa would be better
18507 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Montreal,Quebec,...
Offline
Posted 10/31/16
If you really hate the two candidates, go for a 3rd party candidate. More votes for these parties could give them a seat in the senate.
Sogno- 
45742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/31/16

octorockandroll wrote:


qualeshia3 wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:



If you really can't see yourself being happy with any candidate then you probably should consoder moving.


I don't have the money to move.


You can always save up. Plus you are a student aren't you? You can get a student visa.


dude.

It still costs money. You can't save up if there's nothing to save; if you're barely getting by with paying basic bills and paying for school, there's no way traveling is an option.

Gets It.
24753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Raleigh, North Ca...
Online
Posted 11/1/16

VeggyZ wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding and you weren't being dismissive in calling those arguments conspiracy theories. I understand why you're calling it conspiracy theory - but the inclination of the side it's in favor of shouldn't even matter when it's about illegally winning an election, instigating violence, keeping a nation in the dark as to the situation of the rest of the world, and starting wars we have no business starting - when that conflict could very well kill us all. .


No, I wasn't being entirely dismissive. I can understand the impression I left, though, as it had a bit of snark in how I phrased things (it was an indirect statement following a direct comment). I think the idea of a global conspiracy is a bit much, overall. It's easy to go down the rabbit hole when you're being fed the whole way down, is what I'm trying to indicate. The "small bits of truth that add up into a larger picture" logic is gathered because the sources are pulling into that direction.

I've spoken to people who claim that smoking tobacco is good for you and that all of the medical research papers are just paid-for by the government and the shrills that want to kill off cigarettes (liberals, SJWs, etc etc). But this logic comes from someone who smokes and hates paying the extravagant taxes on them. However, the individual in question has been able to link hundreds of various articles from people who share the same mentality as he does. He stated the same "if you believe that there's a small amount of truth in all things, surely you can see that this is the reality around us - the government is trying to push all healthy benefits of smoking under the rug, they have studies that show that children with cancer who smoked tobacco were cured - that's the kind of powerful, healthy drug that smoking tobacco can be". Of course, this is just one example but it bleeds into our society as a whole.

In the age of the Internet, anyone can post anything they chose. With the right amount of context, with the right amount of explanation, with the right amount of "logic" spun onto a particular video clip, article, research paper, or any other source of information .. it can mean whatever the individual wants it to mean. I could make a video with various clips from Trump that show him being weak, prone to stopping due to excessive physical labor just walking a short distance due to him being overweight, or how he regulates what he eats because he has a heart problem (whereas I have zero proof of any of these things) and there would be Clinton supporters who respond similarly to videos that illustrate Clinton's poor health (as Trump supporters). That's the power of "too much" information, it can be spun whatever way you want it to be spun, it just takes one person who has a specific way of viewing things (that aligns with my or yours or whoever's beliefs/views).

Lending an ear to "conspiracy theories" is one thing, accepting them as fact is another. With all of the slander and nonsensical stuff going on between both political parties and their presidential candidates, it's difficult to trust any of it. You can look at the paperwork for all of Trump's legal issues (bankruptcy, child molestation charges, lawsuits he's settled out of court because he didn't pay contractors) ... you can look at all of the conspiracies surrounding Clinton's law breaking while in the office (e-mails, Benghazi, or claims of her having killed people who "defied her")... there may be a hint of truth in all of it, but I doubt all of it is entirely true.

If you took everything as truth, Trump has raped minors, sexually molested individuals (many of whom have come out and stated that it is truth), called for the murder of innocent men just because he thought he was right, and has avoided paying taxes through various loopholes (that businesses have been using for years, which has put our country into the state we're in). On the flip side, you could say that Clinton was to blame for all of the deaths in Benghazi (while she took responsibility, people fail to understand what her role was in it entirely), she's silenced and killed all of those who opposed her and her husband (claimed to have dismissed claims against Bill of sexual assault, killed off interns that later spoke against her, and so on), and that she's going to start the third World War...

This is what I mean, though, taking everything at face value because there are several sources claiming to be the "true, unbiased, honest, hard-hitting reporting" that you feel you need in your life to understand what's really going on will only result in becoming an alarmist or a "conspiracy theorist" (note quotation marks).


They've admitted to paying mentally ill people $1500 to start violence at trump rallies. Does the motivation behind O'Keefes investigation somehow discredit what he found out through it? It shouldn't matter what you identify as, when one side is using literal mob tactics and admitting to it.


No, O'Keefe has discredited himself through his own methods (similar to what he's "exposing" - breaking laws just to get whatever he wants). On top of that, both Scott Foval and Bob Creamer have been removed from their respective roles in each agency because of the "exposure" from Project Veritas. Everyone claims to be authentic when asked, especially sketchy people like Creamer/Foval. Whether or not everything that Foval said is (absolute) truth is up for debate in and of itself. Both Republicans and Democrats have, historically, attempted to influence voters - even to these absurd and ridiculous levels. But because O'Keefe is biased towards conservatism (Republican), he only exposed the Democratic corruption. That's what I mean by bias influencing motivation and information.


VeggyZ 
2624 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 11/1/16 , edited 11/1/16
This is a bit of a mess, now that I proof-read it, but I don't think I have the motivation tonight to clean it up, so hopefully it's good enough to convey what I'm thinking.

I agree that most of the slander against Trump has been taken severely out of context and doctored to make it sound like something it isn't. In fact, the access hollywood guy (whoever Trump was talking to in his "pussy" talk) admitted just that. That doesn't really surprise me. What does surprise me is that the ad of Hillary and her nuclear war talk / war with Iraq talk is not taken out of context and it's not just words spliced together, they're statements whose meaning can't really be disputed... I expect such damning footage to be doctored - so when I see that it's true to her actual subject and totally in context it scares the shit out of me.

Personally, I've been reading about the globalist conspiracy for ages - not just due to the exposure to it over that time, I've slowly begun to believe that it may actually be a thing. It seems that all these conspiracies that I've read about over the years are actually a part of it, and given the people who are supposedly behind it it starts to seem like the LIKELY story, much more so than it seems a far-fetched theory. So many details have so much in common - there's definitely a hand guiding them... I guess I've never been a fan of coincidence - by it's nature it becomes more unlikely the more of it there is. This election has brought a lot of it to light, and to the general public's attention - but even that only scratches the surface. From the people involved and their reactions to Trump's accusations, and the extremely one-sided attention from the media and authority figures, I can't imagine a more reasonable explanation for these. That said, I don't believe every little detail - but the more we find out about all of this, the more likely it becomes.

Regarding O'Keefe - his methods weren't legal, he recorded without permission, but doesn't that actually add credibility to what he recorded? That these people admitted to those things when they thought they weren't being recorded, is the most important detail of the investigation. It may not have been legal - but what's that saying? It takes a criminal to catch a criminal? I think it was actually thief, but anyway... If what they're recorded saying WAS made up it's one hell of a coincidence that it's so in-line with what Trump has accused them of. There's definitely corruption in both political parties, but the level of this corruption different and it's been in the making for a long time and allowed ample time to get a foothold - complete with Obama's executive orders that almost fully protect those concerned. There are so many details about the whole voter fraud argument that have come to light it's difficult to assume they wouldn't commit it on the largest scale they possibly can. I would argue that it's UNLIKELY that they wouldn't.

There's definitely a reason that so many people are investigating Clinton on their own, and it's because she's stepped on a lot of toes in her life, and resorted to the dirtiest of the dirty in doing. It's because the actual law will not TOUCH her, and the mainstream media will not either. It might be a biased investigation but every investigation is that way - if the effort is made to dig for information they're always going to be doing it from an angle - for a reason, whichever side that may be on. It's also not just republicans or liberals attacking her, and so do not stem from the same bias.

To be honest, I see very little actual information against Trump - very little has surfaced at all, during this entire presidential campaign and almost no details to elaborate on the accusations. Why is he so hard to find dirt on, and Hillary so easy? It's because of the lives they've lived. It certainly seems like one of them has lived fairly cleanly, for a billionaire, and the other is involved in so, SO many ill deeds that she's pissed off exponentially more more people... unless Trump is somehow hiding his past through a means that Hillary couldn't figure out... - I call that unlikely too. Most of the claims against Trump don't have anything to support them - hearsay, and a bad year or two from long ago (or just years he spent a lot of what he made). Trump IS still a billionaire, so to call him a failure and a bad businessman like they try to doesn't mean anything at all. Almost everything else people can say about him has no evidence to support it. He didn't pay federal income tax? he used the system, as he said. He doesn't lie about it, and he doesn't pretend it was a good thing.

There has been all this stuff surrounding Hillary floating around for decades, and it's only gotten worse as time has gone by. There's a reason there's always been so much of it surrounding her... and unfortunately it's not just her, her connections just may be (more like definitely are) worse. There's definitely shadows moving behind all this, that much is obvious. How far do they reach? I guess we can leave that to the conspiracy theories, which are hopefully not true. However, with the actions our leaders have taken, almost none of which benefit anyone in this country, minority or otherwise, I'm inclined to believe once again, there's something to them.

Whether you believe in the fidelity of wikileaks or not - much of what is said about the Clintons IS verifiable through audio / video clips, their career history (i.e. cases they've done). A good example, there's audio of Hillary bragging about how she won her first case and let a rapist go free, who raped a 12 year old, by cutting the bloody portion off of the underwear that was used as evidence - so as to make it insufficient to get a DNA sample. I listened to the clip, and while it's not the highest quality audio clip, it is about the same case she was involved in and it was her voice. She says it isn't real - but that's all she ever says. That isn't enough in light of all the other things she's been involved in / investigated for. Now, if you do trust the fidelity of wikileaks, we can put icing on that cake. I wouldn't know if everything they've released is 100% legitimate, as has been claimed, but I will say that the emails leaked seem very consistent to my own eye.

I absolutely do not think any one theory or theorist is or has the "absolute" truth, but I do think a vast collective of these that end up involving the same people and actions lends a lot of credibility to that truth. I treat a theory as a theory - and I use it to come up with my own, but when evidence surfaces that actually proves there's something to them, I HAVE TO take them out of the realm of mere theory. There may still be theories as to the fine details, but what is now proven through evidence is disturbing and puts a lot of ducks in the row for the rest of the theory - indicating that much of it is likely accurate.

I realize that was a ramble, I'm not really intending to argue at this point either. I was initially, because almost everyone who uses the term "conspiracy theory" IS using the term itself to dismiss the theory... an inherently ridiculous reasoning... I think I assumed you were doing more of the same.


Sogno- wrote:
It still costs money. You can't save up if there's nothing to save; if you're barely getting by with paying basic bills and paying for school, there's no way traveling is an option.



This ^ par for the course in corporate slavery. That's exactly how they like you, lol. Hopefully we have a future that allows your education to pay off.
98109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
68 / M / Columbia, MO
Offline
Posted 11/2/16
1495 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / North
Offline
Posted 11/2/16
5517 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/2/16
Yea it's a pretty awful election. Sad it always seems to come down to Repub-licrat every year. Personally I think if you're picking the lesser of two evils, go Trump but w/e. I'm an independent so I'm not voting for either of those two media loving, crack pots.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.