55 replies to this topic

[Phate]

We're not talking about the Democrats. We're talking about one specific person. Be more specific in supporting your claims.
 
Also, we only have a two party system as long as people blindly choose to view it as such. If I think there is another candidate who better fits my political ideology, I will vote for them even if they are not one of the "big two."

As always, the retort to that, is that I would love to vote for a third party. However, I realize that voting for them won't achieve anything. Practically, realistically, they're not going to win and instead I'd rather vote for the lesser of the two main evils, and ensure the republican doesn't get elected instead.

[Redezra]

We're not talking about the Democrats. We're talking about one specific person. Be more specific in supporting your claims.
 
Also, we only have a two party system as long as people blindly choose to view it as such. If I think there is another candidate who better fits my political ideology, I will vote for them even if they are not one of the "big two."

As always, the retort to that, is that I would love to vote for a third party. However, I realize that voting for them won't achieve anything. Practically, realistically, they're not going to win and instead I'd rather vote for the lesser of the two main evils, and ensure the republican doesn't get elected instead.

Yeah, the American system necessitates a casting away of ideological purities and instead a focus purely on the lesser evil of the two parties.

 

I mean, if this was the Australian, UK, German, etc election, I wouldn't be commenting, it's a lot fairer, and saner.

[CeltSoldierKev]

We're not talking about the Democrats. We're talking about one specific person. Be more specific in supporting your claims.
 
Also, we only have a two party system as long as people blindly choose to view it as such. If I think there is another candidate who better fits my political ideology, I will vote for them even if they are not one of the "big two."

As always, the retort to that, is that I would love to vote for a third party. However, I realize that voting for them won't achieve anything. Practically, realistically, they're not going to win and instead I'd rather vote for the lesser of the two main evils, and ensure the republican doesn't get elected instead.

Yeah, the American system necessitates a casting away of ideological purities and instead a focus purely on the lesser evil of the two parties.

I mean, if this was the Australian, UK, German, etc election, I wouldn't be commenting, it's a lot fairer, and saner.

You wouldn't be commenting on elections in those countries because, no offense, the world does not care.

[Shokkou]

As always, the retort to that, is that I would love to vote for a third party. However, I realize that voting for them won't achieve anything. Practically, realistically, they're not going to win and instead I'd rather vote for the lesser of the two main evils, and ensure the republican doesn't get elected instead.

Yeah, the American system necessitates a casting away of ideological purities and instead a focus purely on the lesser evil of the two parties.
 
I mean, if this was the Australian, UK, German, etc election, I wouldn't be commenting, it's a lot fairer, and saner.

And, as always, my retort is that you are sheep and deserve every bad thing that happens under whatever president is elected. I, on the other hand, actually intend on using the voice I have in these matters by continuing to express my disdain for both major parties. The only wasted vote is the one that is not cast.

 

In any case, I still haven't heard anything but baseless rhetoric to say that the democrats are in fact better than the republicans, much less good enough to warrant voting for. There's been a lot of evasion and repeating of prior (and unsupported) statements.

[Redezra]

As always, the retort to that, is that I would love to vote for a third party. However, I realize that voting for them won't achieve anything. Practically, realistically, they're not going to win and instead I'd rather vote for the lesser of the two main evils, and ensure the republican doesn't get elected instead.

>Yeah, the American system necessitates a casting away of ideological purities and instead a focus purely on the lesser evil of the two parties.
 
I mean, if this was the Australian, UK, German, etc election, I wouldn't be commenting, it's a lot fairer, and saner.

And, as always, my retort is that you are sheep and deserve every bad thing that happens under whatever president is elected. I, on the other hand, actually intend on using the voice I have in these matters by continuing to express my disdain for both major parties. The only wasted vote is the one that is not cast.

 

In any case, I still haven't heard anything but baseless rhetoric to say that the democrats are in fact better than the republicans, much less good enough to warrant voting for. There's been a lot of evasion and repeating of prior (and unsupported) statements.

 

 

You will lose. Idealism does not work in the real world. I sure as hell wouldn't want the democrats in charge cause they're a shit party, but it's either them, or the Republicans, who are on a spectrum from free market fanboys through science denial squadron to religious nutjobs. I'm not saying the people over in Democrat land are any different, but at least their platform is ever so slightly more secular/rational. That part is pretty much self evident.

 

And it's that, combined with the fact that voting for anyone else is idealistic hogswash, flushing any meaning down the toilet, means that the obvious choice is Clinton.

 

I think our views on the presidential candidates would be similar, it's just that while I would aim to have as much effect as possible in the direction the future would take in a "playing the rules of the game" way, you persist with your ideological views admirably, even if it is an ultimately futile effort.

[Shokkou]

 

As always, the retort to that, is that I would love to vote for a third party. However, I realize that voting for them won't achieve anything. Practically, realistically, they're not going to win and instead I'd rather vote for the lesser of the two main evils, and ensure the republican doesn't get elected instead.

>Yeah, the American system necessitates a casting away of ideological purities and instead a focus purely on the lesser evil of the two parties.
 
I mean, if this was the Australian, UK, German, etc election, I wouldn't be commenting, it's

a lot fairer, and saner.

And, as always, my retort is that you are sheep and deserve every bad thing that happens under whatever president is elected. I, on the other hand, actually intend on using the voice I have in these matters by continuing to express my disdain for both major parties. The only wasted vote is the one that is not cast.
 
In any case, I still haven't heard anything but baseless rhetoric to say that the democrats are in fact better than the republicans, much less good enough to warrant voting for. There's been a lot of evasion and repeating of prior (and unsupported) statements.

 
You will lose. Idealism does not work in the real world. I sure as hell wouldn't want the democrats in charge cause they're a shit party, but it's either them, or the Republicans, who are on a spectrum from free market fanboys through science denial squadron to religious nutjobs. I'm not saying the people over in Democrat land are any different, but at least their platform is ever so slightly more secular/rational. That part is pretty much self evident.
 
And it's that, combined with the fact that voting for anyone else is idealistic hogswash, flushing any meaning down the toilet, means that the obvious choice is Clinton.
 
I think our views on the presidential candidates would be similar, it's just that while I would aim to have as much effect as possible in the direction the future would take in a "playing the rules of the game" way, you persist with your ideological views admirably, even if it is an ultimately futile effort.
 

 

If they're not any different, then what do you lose out on by voting for someone who isn't with one of the two major parties? You can't say it isn't worth it and say that they're really not any different. They're not different enough for four years to make that big of a difference (if you doubt me, you clearly haven't been looking at our current president), which is why I will gladly play the longer game of supporting growing dissent and disillusionment against the big two. Maybe there is a short term loss and Clinton gets elected, maybe there isn't. To me, the potential longer term gain of breaking out of the current system is worth it. It's not idealism. It's me taking a more long term view while you insist on being short sighted. If you really wanted to have the greatest impact on the future, you wouldn't just go along with the same tired old system that produces the same tired old results (or lack thereof). In any case, your aim to have as much effect as possible seems kind of moot since I'm pretty sure you can't vote in our presidential elections anyway. That sounds more futile to me than anything.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

To those who say they're not different enough, consider: If Al Gore had won in 2000 instead of George W. Bush, would there still have been an Iraq War? Probably not. Would 9/11 have happened? Who can say? A theoretical Gore administration would likely not have slashed funding for homeland security, as the Bush administration did upon taking office in '01. With a functional, or at least more functional, intelligence and security apparatus, perhaps that attack could have been thwarted. Of course we will never know, but it is an interesting hypothetical.

 

The bottom line is that it's difficult to deny that America would have likely taken a very different course under a President Gore. And perhaps it would not have worked out well, and he would have been voted out in '04. But it would have been different. So don't believe it when they say both parties are the same.

 

A certain amount of idealism is a good thing; it just has to be tempered with a heavy dollop of reality and political good sense. The Obamans had plenty of idealism upon taking office, but they were hopelessly naive about the politics, and they were not prepared to operate in full-blown election mode 24/7/365. But that's the new political reality in America. It's not a world where a guy as reserved and private as Obama was ever likely to thrive. He can muster the energy to do it in short bursts, but I think he seriously thought that after the election things would simmer down and he'd be given the opportunity to govern. Poor, deluded man.

 

Obama hates having to sell himself, he thinks results should speak for themselves. And let's face it, on paper, at least, things don't look so bad. The deficit is the lowest it's been in a decade, unemployment is below 6%, more Americans than ever have health care, crime is at an all-time low. Yet you would never know it. There is a sense of dissatisfaction in the air, a restlessness that will not be satisfied by statistics. You can almost smell it. It's the smell of change, and it's coming. We thought Obama was it, but he turned out to be just the opening act. The system is going to be shaken to its core. I don't know how, I don't know when, but soon, I think. 2016 may be telling.

[Redezra]

 

 

As always, the retort to that, is that I would love to vote for a third party. However, I realize that voting for them won't achieve anything. Practically, realistically, they're not going to win and instead I'd rather vote for the lesser of the two main evils, and ensure the republican doesn't get elected instead.

>Yeah, the American system necessitates a casting away of ideological purities and instead a focus purely on the lesser evil of the two parties.
 
I mean, if this was the Australian, UK, German, etc election, I wouldn't be commenting, it'

s a lot fairer, and saner.

And, as always, my retort is that you are sheep and deserve every bad thing that happens under whatever president is elected. I, on the other hand, actually intend on using the voice I have in these matters by continuing to express my disdain for both major parties. The only wasted vote is the one that is not cast.
 
In any case, I still haven't heard anything but baseless rhetoric to say that the democrats are in fact better than the republicans, much less good enough to warrant voting for. There's been a lot of evasion and repeating of prior (and unsupported) statements.

 
You will lose. Idealism does not work in the real world. I sure as hell wouldn't want the democrats in charge cause they're a shit party, but it's either them, or the Republicans, who are on a spectrum from free market fanboys through science denial squadron to religious nutjobs. I'm not saying the people over in Democrat land are any different, but at least their platform is ever so slightly more secular/rational. That part is pretty much self evident.
 
And it's that, combined with the fact that voting for anyone else is idealistic hogswash, flushing any meaning down the toilet, means that the obvious choice is Clinton.
 
I think our views on the presidential candidates would be similar, it's just that while I would aim to have as much effect as possible in the direction the future would take in a "playing the rules of the game" way, you persist with your ideological views admirably, even if it is an ultimately futile effort.

If they're not any different, then what do you lose out on by voting for someone who isn't with one of the two major parties? You can't say it isn't worth it and say that they're really not any different. They're not different enough for four years to make that big of a difference (if you doubt me, you clearly haven't been looking at our current president), which is why I will gladly play the longer game of supporting growing dissent and disillusionment against the big two. Maybe there is a short term loss and Clinton gets elected, maybe there isn't. To me, the potential longer term gain of breaking out of the current system is worth it. It's not idealism. It's me taking a more long term view while you insist on being short sighted. If you really wanted to have the greatest impact on the future, you wouldn't just go along with the same tired old system that produces the same tired old results (or lack thereof). In any case, your aim to have as much effect as possible seems kind of moot since I'm pretty sure you can't vote in our presidential elections anyway. That sounds more futile to me than anything.

 

 

Mine is the longest game. Nobody, save the undying, play longer than I.

 

Consider it thusly: If the system is hopelessly warped, is it better to have no effect, or to play both enemies against themselves for your benefit, such that one day the rage that all feel against the impossibility of change explodes outwards and gives you a far richer palette to paint with?

 

Again, our views are similar, we just have very different ways of approaching them.

[Shokkou]

I reject your hypothetical scenario, as it is derived from a leading assumption. I also find it amusing how you call me an idealist while you yourself use idealistic rhetoric, relying on the evocative imagery of referring to a "richer palette to paint with" rather than actually defending your position.

[Redezra]

I find it hard to believe that you think my position needs defending. Much like climate change itself, the evidence for the Democrat position being slightly more leaning toward a rational, pro science US Gov is abundant and overwhelming. You need only open Google and search "Senators denying climate change" to find something like this

Or perhaps this

Or maybe this fantastic statement

Or even their actual plans now they control both houses

 

Something must be done. Now. Or we face a mass extinction event. My plans do not look into the next few years, but the next few hundred, and we risk losing our civilisation as it stands if we don't start planning a change. I completely agree that nobody will change hard enough for it to be truly effective, but if we can buy some time, or even point out that people will pay for change, we might be able to do something.

In light of this, Republican government should appear absolutely unacceptable, and every (legal) means necessary must be utilised to prevent it. This includes voting for someone you don't want in power for other reasons if it increases the probability that Republican rule does not come to pass.

 

Dreams of a free and libertarian utopia mean nothing if no civilisation exists to enjoy it.

[Shokkou]

This is bordering on hysterics now. The world is not going to end during the next presidential administration regardless of who gets elected, nor will it be pushed beyond some invisible point-of-no-return. I distrust both major parties and my voting will reflect that.

[Redezra]

And that's the problem I have with most of humanity. Why do now what you can put off to later? None of us will be alive when any of this happens, why should we care?

 

Ugh...

 

You know, it's because of shit like this that I hate mankind. You have no idea what is going to happen. I have only a vague idea, and it's freaking terrifying.

 

 

 

But you know what? Fine. You win. I'm not arguing anymore. Vote for whoever you want. You've reduced my faith in humanity to it's lowest point in ages. I'm going to go murder pixel people. Maybe that will make me feel better.

[Shokkou]

"Why do now what you can put off until later" is literally the entire basis of your argument for why you support the Democrats over any other party. You've outright said that you just want to wait until resentment boils over into an explosion of rage, rather than taking steps to improve the situation as it is now. You have no better an idea of what's going to happen in the future than I do, but somehow every flaw in your plans can be overlooked while any other plan is just handwaved as idealistic or worse.

 

Give yourself a nice, firm pinch on the cheek Redezra. It's time to wake up.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

What steps would you have people take? Contrary to idealistic American propaganda, one person usually cannot make a difference. And when they do it is usually because they were already in a position of power and influence to begin with. There is not a single, solitary thing that any one of us in this thread right now can do to change the system. We are all pawns. We are droplets of water waiting for a wave.

[Redezra]

"Why do now what you can put off until later" is literally the entire basis of your argument for why you support the Democrats over any other party. You've outright said that you just want to wait until resentment boils over into an explosion of rage, rather than taking steps to improve the situation as it is now. You have no better an idea of what's going to happen in the future than I do, but somehow every flaw in your plans can be overlooked while any other plan is just handwaved as idealistic or worse.

 

Give yourself a nice, firm pinch on the cheek Redezra. It's time to wake up.

 

Yeah no, no. I keep thinking that you're the sort of person that might be able to see the world differently, not as a place where the right thing can be done. And I keep getting wound up whenever you don't see what I want you to see. Not even for a minute.

 

Bleh. Whatever. You keep fighting your little war.

 

What steps would you have people take? Contrary to idealistic American propaganda, one person usually cannot make a difference. And when they do it is usually because they were already in a position of power and influence to begin with. There is not a single, solitary thing that any one of us in this thread right now can do to change the system. We are all pawns. We are droplets of water waiting for a wave.

 

The rules are written to prevent anyone playing by them from winning. Stop playing by the rules.

[Shokkou]

"Why do now what you can put off until later" is literally the entire basis of your argument for why you support the Democrats over any other party. You've outright said that you just want to wait until resentment boils over into an explosion of rage, rather than taking steps to improve the situation as it is now. You have no better an idea of what's going to happen in the future than I do, but somehow every flaw in your plans can be overlooked while any other plan is just handwaved as idealistic or worse.

 

Give yourself a nice, firm pinch on the cheek Redezra. It's time to wake up.

 

Yeah no, no. I keep thinking that you're the sort of person that might be able to see the world differently, not as a place where the right thing can be done. And I keep getting wound up whenever you don't see what I want you to see. Not even for a minute.

 

Bleh. Whatever. You keep fighting your little war.

 

>What steps would you have people take? Contrary to idealistic American propaganda, one person usually cannot make a difference. And when they do it is usually because they were already in a position of power and influence to begin with. There is not a single, solitary thing that any one of us in this thread right now can do to change the system. We are all pawns. We are droplets of water waiting for a wave.

 

The rules are written to prevent anyone playing by them from winning. Stop playing by the rules.

 

EDIT: A new ceasefire has been signed.