|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 11 2016 04:31 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:19 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 03:51 SK.Testie wrote:On May 11 2016 02:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 02:03 SolaR- wrote:On May 10 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On May 10 2016 07:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 10 2016 07:03 Ghostcom wrote:On May 10 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You may want to try reading what I wrote again. I did not call him stupid. My complaint is very different. I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views. But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade. Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite? People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative. It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy. 1. Socioeconomic problems (white privilege eroding, economy not doing well, general instability of where people see themselves and their country down the road) 2. Unrest leads to scapegoating (Mexicans, Muslims) 3. Populist suggests policies targeting scapegoats Trump's points to address point 1 directly are laughable, but we can at least have a sensible discussion about them. His main platform, however, is point number 3. I reject that position outright, and we SHOULD ignore people wanting to talk about policies regarding singling out muslims, or building walls for mexicans, because we should not take that type of stupid scapegoating seriously. We should have a sensible discussion about immigration policy reform. We should not have it on the assumption that mexicans are rapists and murderers. We should have a discussion about how to deal with radical Islam abroad, and foreign policy to deal with it. We should not have it on the basis of banning all muslims from entering the US. "Illegals don't rape at a rate higher than the normal populace!" the left will cry. Actually, they do. By a lot. Again, I need to post this again it seems. From an extremely leftist news source even. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html So here is literal proof of saying, "Hey.. 4 out of 5 women are getting raped" and the left responds with righteous indignation, "omg how could you. They don't rape more than anyone else". "Uhh.. but.. 4 out of 5.." "You fucking racist bigot." "No really.. this is a problem and I don't want this on our hands. This problem doesn't belong to us." "RACISTTTTT." Are we seriously to pretend that a country that doesn't solve 99% of its murders and is cartel country is really our loving, totally equal companion? Egalitarian fantasy much? Also, it is the peoples country. And the polls suggest (even among democrats) that banning all Muslim entry temporarily is favorable. If the people of the country agree, how is that not acceptable? Poland is 100% against Muslim immigration and against Islam in general. That's their country, they are very free to do that. Germany and Sweden are not. Does anyone want to live in Malmo Sweden where grenades have gone off because they were top of the charts on tolerance? What did their tolerance get them? Mexican government providing the manual. So yes, it's true for Trump to say, "When Mexico sends its people" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.htmlSo answer this after reading those. When Trump says, "When Mexico sends their people, they're not sending their best etc." Is he wrong? Is he wrong on that statement? Does Islam integrate well with western nations? How is building a wall a terrible idea when Mexico is proven to be actively sending their poorest people and trying to get rid of them. Mexico itself treats illegal immigrants very harshly. Why should the US treat them with such tender love and care when these same people did not respect the law? Countries aren't shelters for the needy and you cannot take in all of the worlds poor and somehow give them a better life in America. These are two very popular positions in the US. Since when does anyone else in the world have a right to move into your country against your peoples wishes? If the USA said, "alright, no more Canadians for a while until they say the word about properly" even as silly as that is, they could make that distinction because it is their country. They are 100% ok to make the silliest fucking laws they want if that's their peoples wish. I've found Europeans especially pretentious and overly liberal about Americas problems. Comparing tiny Scandinavian countries to America is ludicrous. Even comparing the UK and Germany to America is ludicrous. I myself used to be on that European side. The left Jon Stewart side. I still am in many ways, but right now I think America desperately needs Trump. They have real issues that have been ignored. But not just ignored, completely ridiculed and then they themselves are ostracized. And don't dodge the question on Mexican illegals up there. Someone from the left had better answer to it. 4 out of 5 women raped, and the mexican government has been proven to be helping them along to break the law to enter America. The question is: Is Trump wrong to be saying that they aren't sending their bests and that a lot of rape, crime, and drugs comes with them? Considering that they've all broken the law to enter the country, the crime rate is literally 100%. Testie, I 100% agree with your reasoning and i believe that we are both coming from the same place in support of Trump. I am too, typically very liberal on many social issues, yet i find myself very intrigued by Trump's proposals. Trump is not a racist or a bigot. He is a man who speaks his mind and openly addresses the issue even if it doesnt fit under political correctness. With that said, i think democrats and liberals are severely underestimating the base of trump supporters. Trump has way more appeal to swing democrats to vote for him than clinton has for republicans. Trump has managed to keep his campaign broad enough to draw in supporters from all walks of life. Are you two literally against the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy in favor of "civil rights only matter to the people I deem they're okay for" This is just sick. How are we against innocent until proven guilty? How are we against civil rights? If anything it's those arguing with us that have a clear disdain for the rule of law. Just because a mexican in mexico raped someone does not mean the mexican you see outside of mexico will rape someone. You have to wait until there is evidence or proof of guilt before assuming they are guilty of being rapists. The civil rights that America believes in, the rights of fairness, equality, and being given a chance at things--that is something we should give to everyone and not just the select few we allow. "Not just the select few we allow". You mean the ones who came legally, correct? So you're saying we should have an open border. Correct? Anyone anywhere should just be free to travel anywhere because we're all citizens of the earth? Equality and love for all etc? Your argument is basically, "fuck the immigration law, it's a stupid law. Just let them come in and we'll take care of them".
I never said fuck the immigration law. But when they are here, no matter what reason they are here for, we should treat them like we treat any other human being. We don't call them rapists, we don't call them criminals until they actually do rape or they actually engage in criminal activity. Preparing a wall with the argument that all these rapists and criminals are coming down your door before you have any proof of wrongdoing even happening is what makes it racist.
But while we're on the topic--yeah, open but regulated borders is better than less than fully closed borders 100% of the time. Better to welcome (but tag) everyone than it is to try barring everyone, and having those that sneak past become invisible.
|
On May 11 2016 04:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something? The goal of elections is to build a government, not to elect a friend. If you think voting for 1 member of a thousand+ size industry is about what you believe in and is not about making sure that industry doesn't break--then it shows that what you care about is how you feel instead of actually building a government body. Its what makes you sound whiny, its what makes you sound childish. What moohdoo is implying is that he hopes you're an inexperienced youth, because an adult acting this foolish would have no excuses other than stupidity. What's childish is calling someone who's been in the Air Force stupid because he doesn't feel obligated to vote in an election in a country where it's not compulsory to do so.
Him not wanting to vote is not childish. Stupid, maybe. Misguided, definitely. Childish--no. What makes him childish is putting all his moral faith in one vote as if the president does 100% of the governing. Childish is thinking you fix government by voting for 1 random guy who yells out stuff and not by voting for a unified party with enough group weight to be able to make actual change. Childish is thinking this presidential vote is more meaningful than all the other votes that need to happen.
If he simply didn't want to vote because he doesn't want to vote that's one thing. Not wanting to vote because the guy he likes lost and he'd rather have the country burn so that he can claim a perceived moral purity is intentionally tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
|
RALEIGH, N.C. — Republicans in North Carolina are increasingly worried that the state’s new “bathroom law” blocking protections for the LGBT community will cost the GOP dearly in November’s elections.
They say the reason is simple: The party that took over North Carolina as champions of small government is now seen by moderate voters as the party of the bathroom police.
Republican lawmakers and strategists in the state say the GOP is badly losing the public relations battle over House Bill 2, the law banning local nondiscrimination ordinances, which Gov. Pat McCrory signed in March. That trend only worsened Monday, when U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch called the law “state-sponsored discrimination” and compared it to Jim Crow-era laws while announcing new legal action.
The GOP argument that the law is about public safety has been overrun by a coalition including some of America’s biggest businesses, which says HB2 discriminates against transgender people by, among other things, forcing them to use bathrooms that may not correspond to their gender identities — and the law has come to define the Republican Party in North Carolina.
“The reality is that HB2 hurts,” said state Rep. Charles Jeter, the GOP lawmaker responsible for maintaining his party’s majority in the state legislature. “It doesn’t matter that I’m opposed to it or that I’ve called for its repeal … because the mailer to voters [in my race] is going to say that I was a part of the Republican majority that passed the most discriminatory bill in the state. HB2 is going to have reverberations for our party no matter what we do, in November and probably beyond that.”
Another top Republican strategist in the state said the GOP’s recent run of success in North Carolina may have pushed the party too far.
Source
|
On May 11 2016 04:53 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:31 SK.Testie wrote:On May 11 2016 04:19 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 03:51 SK.Testie wrote:On May 11 2016 02:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 02:03 SolaR- wrote:On May 10 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On May 10 2016 07:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 10 2016 07:03 Ghostcom wrote:On May 10 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views.
But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade.
Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite? People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative. It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy. 1. Socioeconomic problems (white privilege eroding, economy not doing well, general instability of where people see themselves and their country down the road) 2. Unrest leads to scapegoating (Mexicans, Muslims) 3. Populist suggests policies targeting scapegoats Trump's points to address point 1 directly are laughable, but we can at least have a sensible discussion about them. His main platform, however, is point number 3. I reject that position outright, and we SHOULD ignore people wanting to talk about policies regarding singling out muslims, or building walls for mexicans, because we should not take that type of stupid scapegoating seriously. We should have a sensible discussion about immigration policy reform. We should not have it on the assumption that mexicans are rapists and murderers. We should have a discussion about how to deal with radical Islam abroad, and foreign policy to deal with it. We should not have it on the basis of banning all muslims from entering the US. "Illegals don't rape at a rate higher than the normal populace!" the left will cry. Actually, they do. By a lot. Again, I need to post this again it seems. From an extremely leftist news source even. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html So here is literal proof of saying, "Hey.. 4 out of 5 women are getting raped" and the left responds with righteous indignation, "omg how could you. They don't rape more than anyone else". "Uhh.. but.. 4 out of 5.." "You fucking racist bigot." "No really.. this is a problem and I don't want this on our hands. This problem doesn't belong to us." "RACISTTTTT." Are we seriously to pretend that a country that doesn't solve 99% of its murders and is cartel country is really our loving, totally equal companion? Egalitarian fantasy much? Also, it is the peoples country. And the polls suggest (even among democrats) that banning all Muslim entry temporarily is favorable. If the people of the country agree, how is that not acceptable? Poland is 100% against Muslim immigration and against Islam in general. That's their country, they are very free to do that. Germany and Sweden are not. Does anyone want to live in Malmo Sweden where grenades have gone off because they were top of the charts on tolerance? What did their tolerance get them? Mexican government providing the manual. So yes, it's true for Trump to say, "When Mexico sends its people" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.htmlSo answer this after reading those. When Trump says, "When Mexico sends their people, they're not sending their best etc." Is he wrong? Is he wrong on that statement? Does Islam integrate well with western nations? How is building a wall a terrible idea when Mexico is proven to be actively sending their poorest people and trying to get rid of them. Mexico itself treats illegal immigrants very harshly. Why should the US treat them with such tender love and care when these same people did not respect the law? Countries aren't shelters for the needy and you cannot take in all of the worlds poor and somehow give them a better life in America. These are two very popular positions in the US. Since when does anyone else in the world have a right to move into your country against your peoples wishes? If the USA said, "alright, no more Canadians for a while until they say the word about properly" even as silly as that is, they could make that distinction because it is their country. They are 100% ok to make the silliest fucking laws they want if that's their peoples wish. I've found Europeans especially pretentious and overly liberal about Americas problems. Comparing tiny Scandinavian countries to America is ludicrous. Even comparing the UK and Germany to America is ludicrous. I myself used to be on that European side. The left Jon Stewart side. I still am in many ways, but right now I think America desperately needs Trump. They have real issues that have been ignored. But not just ignored, completely ridiculed and then they themselves are ostracized. And don't dodge the question on Mexican illegals up there. Someone from the left had better answer to it. 4 out of 5 women raped, and the mexican government has been proven to be helping them along to break the law to enter America. The question is: Is Trump wrong to be saying that they aren't sending their bests and that a lot of rape, crime, and drugs comes with them? Considering that they've all broken the law to enter the country, the crime rate is literally 100%. Testie, I 100% agree with your reasoning and i believe that we are both coming from the same place in support of Trump. I am too, typically very liberal on many social issues, yet i find myself very intrigued by Trump's proposals. Trump is not a racist or a bigot. He is a man who speaks his mind and openly addresses the issue even if it doesnt fit under political correctness. With that said, i think democrats and liberals are severely underestimating the base of trump supporters. Trump has way more appeal to swing democrats to vote for him than clinton has for republicans. Trump has managed to keep his campaign broad enough to draw in supporters from all walks of life. Are you two literally against the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy in favor of "civil rights only matter to the people I deem they're okay for" This is just sick. How are we against innocent until proven guilty? How are we against civil rights? If anything it's those arguing with us that have a clear disdain for the rule of law. Just because a mexican in mexico raped someone does not mean the mexican you see outside of mexico will rape someone. You have to wait until there is evidence or proof of guilt before assuming they are guilty of being rapists. The civil rights that America believes in, the rights of fairness, equality, and being given a chance at things--that is something we should give to everyone and not just the select few we allow. "Not just the select few we allow". You mean the ones who came legally, correct? So you're saying we should have an open border. Correct? Anyone anywhere should just be free to travel anywhere because we're all citizens of the earth? Equality and love for all etc? Your argument is basically, "fuck the immigration law, it's a stupid law. Just let them come in and we'll take care of them". I never said fuck the immigration law. But when they are here, no matter what reason they are here for, we should treat them like we treat any other human being. We don't call them rapists, we don't call them criminals until they actually do rape or they actually engage in criminal activity. Preparing a wall with the argument that all these rapists and criminals are coming down your door before you have any proof of wrongdoing even happening is what makes it racist. But while we're on the topic--yeah, open but regulated borders is better than less than fully closed borders 100% of the time. Better to welcome (but tag) everyone than it is to try barring everyone, and having those that sneak past become invisible.
Nah with that I can't agree. Your argument is sensible, but I feel it is still misguided. You already know that 80% of the women coming will be raped along the way. It's far better to send the message of, "don't come unless you can afford to do so legally". There's a legal process for a reason. It's in the nations best interests. You're not completely closed to immigration, you just want it to be sensible and clearly defined. Not, "walk across the border and you're safe". With Trump having the possibility of getting elected you're getting a rush on the border atm. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/americas/cuba-migrants-mexico-panama/index.html
|
On May 11 2016 04:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:23 ragz_gt wrote:On May 11 2016 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:New York City Board of Elections Executive Director Michael J. Ryan, and the majority of the Board Commissioners knew about the purging of nearly 160,000 residents from the voting rolls as early as July of last year and apparently sat on their hands, Kings County Politics has learned.
According to minutes of the July 7, 2015 meeting, Ryan reported on the Voter Cancellation Process saying, “The total amount of Intent to Cancel (ITC) Letters mailed citywide were 168,197. The total amount of voters cancelled is 157,057. The total amount of National Change of Address (NCOA) Letters that are “Moved Out of the City” are 43,505, and the total amount of “Transfers” are 75,797.
Also according to the minutes Brooklyn BOE Commissioner John Flateau inquired about the high amount of voter cancellations in Brooklyn based on the report. He also requested for cancellation numbers by Assembly District, if possible, for Brooklyn.
According to the minutes, those present at the meeting included: Commissioners Jose Araujo, Ronald Castorina, John Flateau, Maria R. Guastella, Alan Schulkin, Michael Rendino, Simon Shamoun, Frederic M. Umane.
KCP has made an inquiry to the BOE on how the commissioners followed up on this unusually high amount of voters being purged from the rolls, and the results of Flateau’s request for the cancellation numbers in Brooklyn by Assembly District. Link The meeting is on 7/7/2015, while Bernie Sanders's campaign was launched on 5/26/2015... are you seriously suggesting that something come out in a meeting 1 month later, before Bernie established as a serious contender, where the issue discussed most likely was before him even entering the race, was a systematically conspiracy against him??! I'm not suggesting anything. Just updating on the massive purge. Doesn't matter to me if they were Bernie voters or not, at best, it shows a gross incompetence not becoming of the BOE. If it goes beyond incompetence/negligence the people responsible should be held accountable and there should be serious consequences if 100k voters were intentionally disenfranchised. The city/state can't seem to keep their story straight. Though we have to keep in mind they were partially a model for some southern voter suppression laws. Whole buildings dropped off of voter roles doesn't sound "usual" and if it is, that sounds like a usual problem, not just normal. That's ignoring that the reduction in voters was an anomaly. I'm inclined to agree more with the Comptroller on this one. The bar for running an acceptable elections operation has been abnormally low this cycle for sure though. Show nested quote +Speaking to CNN on Tuesday night, Board of Elections Executive Director Michael Ryan pushed back against the growing criticism, saying, "We're not finding that there were issues throughout the city that are any different than what we experience in other elections."
Of the 126,000 Democratic voters taken off from the rolls in Brooklyn, Ryan said 12,000 had moved out of borough, while 44,000 more had been placed in an inactive file after mailings to their homes bounced back. An additional 70,000 were already inactive and, having failed to vote in two successive federal elections or respond to cancel notices, were removed.
"Since the eyes and ears of the world are on New York, issues that are relatively routine for any election are receiving greater scrutiny," he added.
In pledging to audit the board, the office of New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer issued a much stricter verdict.
"The people of New York City have lost confidence that the Board of Elections can effectively administer elections and we intend to find out why the BOE is so consistently disorganized, chaotic and inefficient," he said.
The Clinton campaign had no immediate comment when asked by CNN.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's voter complaint hotline received more than 1,000 complaints throughout the day, Schneiderman's office said in a statement. The same office, he added, had heard only around 150 on the day of the 2012 general election
Link
I don't think anyone is shocked if some of those people are incompetent and or corrupt, but to say that you didn't post it suggesting somehow it was Hillary's evil henchman out to get Sanders supporters is pretty laughable.
|
On May 11 2016 04:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:33 oBlade wrote:On May 11 2016 04:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something? The goal of elections is to build a government, not to elect a friend. If you think voting for 1 member of a thousand+ size industry is about what you believe in and is not about making sure that industry doesn't break--then it shows that what you care about is how you feel instead of actually building a government body. Its what makes you sound whiny, its what makes you sound childish. What moohdoo is implying is that he hopes you're an inexperienced youth, because an adult acting this foolish would have no excuses other than stupidity. What's childish is calling someone who's been in the Air Force stupid because he doesn't feel obligated to vote in an election in a country where it's not compulsory to do so. Him not wanting to vote is not childish. Stupid, maybe. Misguided, definitely. Childish--no. What makes him childish is putting all his moral faith in one vote as if the president does 100% of the governing. Childish is thinking you fix government by voting for 1 random guy who yells out stuff and not by voting for a unified party with enough group weight to be able to make actual change. Childish is thinking this presidential vote is more meaningful than all the other votes that need to happen. If he simply didn't want to vote because he doesn't want to vote that's one thing. Not wanting to vote because the guy he likes lost and he'd rather have the country burn so that he can claim a perceived moral purity is intentionally tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
where are you getting this shit from, honestly
I already said, I don't want to vote if I can't vote for Bernie because I don't support the other candidates. How did you get "the guy he likes lost and he'd rather have the country burn so that he can claim a perceived moral purity" out of that? I never expected Bernie to win in the first place.
Honestly, some of you underestimate the intelligence of other people. Two intelligent people can come to different conclusions about things like politics, because overall it's actually fairly complicated. You keep jumping to conclusions about what I think and believe. They are mostly wrong, and mostly disrespectful.
"1 random guy who yells stuff out". Really? Come on.
"Childish is thinking this presidential vote is more meaningful than all the other votes that need to happen." What does this even mean?
"What makes him childish is putting all his moral faith in one vote as if the president does 100% of the governing." Again - I have no idea what you are saying. Can you even explain what you are saying?
|
It’s almost like they are not the party of small government at all. And the GOP is also holding congressional hearings into Facebook filtering conservative articles peoples Facebook feeds. Facebook, the private company that people willingly sign up for and had never claimed to be a news service.
Edit: LOL, "Don't come if you can't afford to do it legally." By the way, we don't issue enough visas and the process super expensive. So there is no legal way to immigrate for most people who want to, so to bad. And we are never going to fix it, so don't bother. Sure, our businesses would love to hire you, but the goverment is to busy using this issue as a political football.
|
On May 11 2016 04:53 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:31 SK.Testie wrote:On May 11 2016 04:19 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 03:51 SK.Testie wrote:On May 11 2016 02:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 02:03 SolaR- wrote:On May 10 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On May 10 2016 07:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 10 2016 07:03 Ghostcom wrote:On May 10 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views.
But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade.
Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite? People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative. It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy. 1. Socioeconomic problems (white privilege eroding, economy not doing well, general instability of where people see themselves and their country down the road) 2. Unrest leads to scapegoating (Mexicans, Muslims) 3. Populist suggests policies targeting scapegoats Trump's points to address point 1 directly are laughable, but we can at least have a sensible discussion about them. His main platform, however, is point number 3. I reject that position outright, and we SHOULD ignore people wanting to talk about policies regarding singling out muslims, or building walls for mexicans, because we should not take that type of stupid scapegoating seriously. We should have a sensible discussion about immigration policy reform. We should not have it on the assumption that mexicans are rapists and murderers. We should have a discussion about how to deal with radical Islam abroad, and foreign policy to deal with it. We should not have it on the basis of banning all muslims from entering the US. "Illegals don't rape at a rate higher than the normal populace!" the left will cry. Actually, they do. By a lot. Again, I need to post this again it seems. From an extremely leftist news source even. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html So here is literal proof of saying, "Hey.. 4 out of 5 women are getting raped" and the left responds with righteous indignation, "omg how could you. They don't rape more than anyone else". "Uhh.. but.. 4 out of 5.." "You fucking racist bigot." "No really.. this is a problem and I don't want this on our hands. This problem doesn't belong to us." "RACISTTTTT." Are we seriously to pretend that a country that doesn't solve 99% of its murders and is cartel country is really our loving, totally equal companion? Egalitarian fantasy much? Also, it is the peoples country. And the polls suggest (even among democrats) that banning all Muslim entry temporarily is favorable. If the people of the country agree, how is that not acceptable? Poland is 100% against Muslim immigration and against Islam in general. That's their country, they are very free to do that. Germany and Sweden are not. Does anyone want to live in Malmo Sweden where grenades have gone off because they were top of the charts on tolerance? What did their tolerance get them? Mexican government providing the manual. So yes, it's true for Trump to say, "When Mexico sends its people" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.htmlSo answer this after reading those. When Trump says, "When Mexico sends their people, they're not sending their best etc." Is he wrong? Is he wrong on that statement? Does Islam integrate well with western nations? How is building a wall a terrible idea when Mexico is proven to be actively sending their poorest people and trying to get rid of them. Mexico itself treats illegal immigrants very harshly. Why should the US treat them with such tender love and care when these same people did not respect the law? Countries aren't shelters for the needy and you cannot take in all of the worlds poor and somehow give them a better life in America. These are two very popular positions in the US. Since when does anyone else in the world have a right to move into your country against your peoples wishes? If the USA said, "alright, no more Canadians for a while until they say the word about properly" even as silly as that is, they could make that distinction because it is their country. They are 100% ok to make the silliest fucking laws they want if that's their peoples wish. I've found Europeans especially pretentious and overly liberal about Americas problems. Comparing tiny Scandinavian countries to America is ludicrous. Even comparing the UK and Germany to America is ludicrous. I myself used to be on that European side. The left Jon Stewart side. I still am in many ways, but right now I think America desperately needs Trump. They have real issues that have been ignored. But not just ignored, completely ridiculed and then they themselves are ostracized. And don't dodge the question on Mexican illegals up there. Someone from the left had better answer to it. 4 out of 5 women raped, and the mexican government has been proven to be helping them along to break the law to enter America. The question is: Is Trump wrong to be saying that they aren't sending their bests and that a lot of rape, crime, and drugs comes with them? Considering that they've all broken the law to enter the country, the crime rate is literally 100%. Testie, I 100% agree with your reasoning and i believe that we are both coming from the same place in support of Trump. I am too, typically very liberal on many social issues, yet i find myself very intrigued by Trump's proposals. Trump is not a racist or a bigot. He is a man who speaks his mind and openly addresses the issue even if it doesnt fit under political correctness. With that said, i think democrats and liberals are severely underestimating the base of trump supporters. Trump has way more appeal to swing democrats to vote for him than clinton has for republicans. Trump has managed to keep his campaign broad enough to draw in supporters from all walks of life. Are you two literally against the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy in favor of "civil rights only matter to the people I deem they're okay for" This is just sick. How are we against innocent until proven guilty? How are we against civil rights? If anything it's those arguing with us that have a clear disdain for the rule of law. Just because a mexican in mexico raped someone does not mean the mexican you see outside of mexico will rape someone. You have to wait until there is evidence or proof of guilt before assuming they are guilty of being rapists. The civil rights that America believes in, the rights of fairness, equality, and being given a chance at things--that is something we should give to everyone and not just the select few we allow. "Not just the select few we allow". You mean the ones who came legally, correct? So you're saying we should have an open border. Correct? Anyone anywhere should just be free to travel anywhere because we're all citizens of the earth? Equality and love for all etc? Your argument is basically, "fuck the immigration law, it's a stupid law. Just let them come in and we'll take care of them". I never said fuck the immigration law. But when they are here, no matter what reason they are here for, we should treat them like we treat any other human being. We don't call them rapists, we don't call them criminals until they actually do rape or they actually engage in criminal activity. Preparing a wall with the argument that all these rapists and criminals are coming down your door before you have any proof of wrongdoing even happening is what makes it racist. But while we're on the topic--yeah, open but regulated borders is better than less than fully closed borders 100% of the time. Better to welcome (but tag) everyone than it is to try barring everyone, and having those that sneak past become invisible.
This is a naive attitude that ignores risk factors and overall risk assessment due to blind faith/just world fallacy. I hope the majority of Americans disagree with this in the upcoming election and put and hold an 'America first' attitude regardless of the political correctness.
|
On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something?
A material benefit is something that you can hold, touch or otherwise physically appreciate. The warm fuzzy feeling of knowing you didn't vote for someone you dislike is not a material benefit. You sound whiny because you are making it clear that you are withholding your vote unless you are properly catered to. You come across as inflexible and illogical. You are essentially dismissing the idea of a lesser of two evils, which is even more silly.
You show yourself to be emotionally volatile and an unreliable vote. You are not the sort of person either political party worries about catering to because, as you are pointing out, you are just sitting this election out. You won't vote either way, so who cares about what you think? There's no reason to represent the views of someone who isn't going to vote.
I don't know how old you are, but you have shown a lot of characteristics of someone probably 25-35, which is the younger block that tends to lack representation. I would be surprised if you were older than 35. Regardless of your age, your commitment to the idea of not voting for the lesser of two evils already puts you in the "illogical and unreliable" bin to political strategists. Young people's tendency to give up on politics when their dog in the race loses is a really big deal. Young people need to feel like they have momentum on their side because they don't appreciate the time it takes for real change to happen. When it looks like the kind of thing that will take real commitment, they yell oligarchy and go back to business as usual.
|
On May 11 2016 05:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something? A material benefit is something that you can hold, touch or otherwise physically appreciate. The warm fuzzy feeling of knowing you didn't vote for someone you dislike is not a material benefit. You sound whiny because you are making it clear that you are withholding your vote unless you are properly catered to. You come across as inflexible and illogical. You are essentially dismissing the idea of a lesser of two evils, which is even more silly. You show yourself to be emotionally volatile and an unreliable vote. You are not the sort of person either political party worries about catering to because, as you are pointing out, you are just sitting this election out. You won't vote either way, so who cares about what you think? There's no reason to represent the views of someone who isn't going to vote. I don't know how old you are, but you have shown a lot of characteristics of someone probably 25-35, which is the younger block that tends to lack representation. I would be surprised if you were older than 35. Regardless of your age, your commitment to the idea of not voting for the lesser of two evils already puts you in the "illogical and unreliable" bin to political strategists. Young people's tendency to give up on politics when their dog in the race loses is a really big deal. Young people need to feel like they have momentum on their side because they don't appreciate the time it takes for real change to happen. When it looks like the kind of thing that will take real commitment, they yell oligarchy and go back to business as usual.
Agreed, voting is a duty. Otherwise your opinions and views are irrelevant, because you aren't even representing yourself so why should anyone else?
|
On May 11 2016 05:09 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:53 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 04:31 SK.Testie wrote:On May 11 2016 04:19 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 03:51 SK.Testie wrote:On May 11 2016 02:20 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 02:03 SolaR- wrote:On May 10 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:On May 10 2016 07:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 10 2016 07:03 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite?
People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative.
It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy. 1. Socioeconomic problems (white privilege eroding, economy not doing well, general instability of where people see themselves and their country down the road) 2. Unrest leads to scapegoating (Mexicans, Muslims) 3. Populist suggests policies targeting scapegoats Trump's points to address point 1 directly are laughable, but we can at least have a sensible discussion about them. His main platform, however, is point number 3. I reject that position outright, and we SHOULD ignore people wanting to talk about policies regarding singling out muslims, or building walls for mexicans, because we should not take that type of stupid scapegoating seriously. We should have a sensible discussion about immigration policy reform. We should not have it on the assumption that mexicans are rapists and murderers. We should have a discussion about how to deal with radical Islam abroad, and foreign policy to deal with it. We should not have it on the basis of banning all muslims from entering the US. "Illegals don't rape at a rate higher than the normal populace!" the left will cry. Actually, they do. By a lot. Again, I need to post this again it seems. From an extremely leftist news source even. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html So here is literal proof of saying, "Hey.. 4 out of 5 women are getting raped" and the left responds with righteous indignation, "omg how could you. They don't rape more than anyone else". "Uhh.. but.. 4 out of 5.." "You fucking racist bigot." "No really.. this is a problem and I don't want this on our hands. This problem doesn't belong to us." "RACISTTTTT." Are we seriously to pretend that a country that doesn't solve 99% of its murders and is cartel country is really our loving, totally equal companion? Egalitarian fantasy much? Also, it is the peoples country. And the polls suggest (even among democrats) that banning all Muslim entry temporarily is favorable. If the people of the country agree, how is that not acceptable? Poland is 100% against Muslim immigration and against Islam in general. That's their country, they are very free to do that. Germany and Sweden are not. Does anyone want to live in Malmo Sweden where grenades have gone off because they were top of the charts on tolerance? What did their tolerance get them? Mexican government providing the manual. So yes, it's true for Trump to say, "When Mexico sends its people" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.htmlSo answer this after reading those. When Trump says, "When Mexico sends their people, they're not sending their best etc." Is he wrong? Is he wrong on that statement? Does Islam integrate well with western nations? How is building a wall a terrible idea when Mexico is proven to be actively sending their poorest people and trying to get rid of them. Mexico itself treats illegal immigrants very harshly. Why should the US treat them with such tender love and care when these same people did not respect the law? Countries aren't shelters for the needy and you cannot take in all of the worlds poor and somehow give them a better life in America. These are two very popular positions in the US. Since when does anyone else in the world have a right to move into your country against your peoples wishes? If the USA said, "alright, no more Canadians for a while until they say the word about properly" even as silly as that is, they could make that distinction because it is their country. They are 100% ok to make the silliest fucking laws they want if that's their peoples wish. I've found Europeans especially pretentious and overly liberal about Americas problems. Comparing tiny Scandinavian countries to America is ludicrous. Even comparing the UK and Germany to America is ludicrous. I myself used to be on that European side. The left Jon Stewart side. I still am in many ways, but right now I think America desperately needs Trump. They have real issues that have been ignored. But not just ignored, completely ridiculed and then they themselves are ostracized. And don't dodge the question on Mexican illegals up there. Someone from the left had better answer to it. 4 out of 5 women raped, and the mexican government has been proven to be helping them along to break the law to enter America. The question is: Is Trump wrong to be saying that they aren't sending their bests and that a lot of rape, crime, and drugs comes with them? Considering that they've all broken the law to enter the country, the crime rate is literally 100%. Testie, I 100% agree with your reasoning and i believe that we are both coming from the same place in support of Trump. I am too, typically very liberal on many social issues, yet i find myself very intrigued by Trump's proposals. Trump is not a racist or a bigot. He is a man who speaks his mind and openly addresses the issue even if it doesnt fit under political correctness. With that said, i think democrats and liberals are severely underestimating the base of trump supporters. Trump has way more appeal to swing democrats to vote for him than clinton has for republicans. Trump has managed to keep his campaign broad enough to draw in supporters from all walks of life. Are you two literally against the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy in favor of "civil rights only matter to the people I deem they're okay for" This is just sick. How are we against innocent until proven guilty? How are we against civil rights? If anything it's those arguing with us that have a clear disdain for the rule of law. Just because a mexican in mexico raped someone does not mean the mexican you see outside of mexico will rape someone. You have to wait until there is evidence or proof of guilt before assuming they are guilty of being rapists. The civil rights that America believes in, the rights of fairness, equality, and being given a chance at things--that is something we should give to everyone and not just the select few we allow. "Not just the select few we allow". You mean the ones who came legally, correct? So you're saying we should have an open border. Correct? Anyone anywhere should just be free to travel anywhere because we're all citizens of the earth? Equality and love for all etc? Your argument is basically, "fuck the immigration law, it's a stupid law. Just let them come in and we'll take care of them". I never said fuck the immigration law. But when they are here, no matter what reason they are here for, we should treat them like we treat any other human being. We don't call them rapists, we don't call them criminals until they actually do rape or they actually engage in criminal activity. Preparing a wall with the argument that all these rapists and criminals are coming down your door before you have any proof of wrongdoing even happening is what makes it racist. But while we're on the topic--yeah, open but regulated borders is better than less than fully closed borders 100% of the time. Better to welcome (but tag) everyone than it is to try barring everyone, and having those that sneak past become invisible. This is a naive attitude that ignores risk factors and overall risk assessment due to blind faith/just world fallacy. I hope the majority of Americans disagree with this in the upcoming election and put and hold an 'America first' attitude regardless of the political correctness.
No, I will vote again any anti-immigration movements because our country runs on immigration. Without it, our population would be in decline and that leads to recessions and other economic problems. Political correctness isn’t the threat people make it out to be.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-study-idUSKCN0RS08V20150928
|
On Immigration, I've been looking through the smuggling fees, and alternative systems.
I'm starting to feel we should seriously consider some tariff immigration programs (i.e. pay a bunch of money and you can get in)
http://openborders.info/immigration-tariffs/
especially looking at the fees charged by illegal smugglers:
http://www.havocscope.com/black-market-prices/human-smuggling-fees/
it says the fees can get into the $50k area for smuggling from china/india to the US. If they're willing to pay that much to smugglers, maybe we should just let them pay the money to the US and let them in legally.
|
On May 11 2016 05:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something? A material benefit is something that you can hold, touch or otherwise physically appreciate. The warm fuzzy feeling of knowing you didn't vote for someone you dislike is not a material benefit. You sound whiny because you are making it clear that you are withholding your vote unless you are properly catered to. You come across as inflexible and illogical. You are essentially dismissing the idea of a lesser of two evils, which is even more silly.
I know what a material benefit is. I didn't say material benefit, because I don't actually need a material benefit in order to do things.
Ok yes, I am withholding my vote unless I am "properly catered to". What a strange way to put it. Well, I know why you put it that way, because you are trying to make it sound bad. Guess what, I DON'T WANT TO SHOW MY SUPPORT FOR SOMEONE I DON'T BELIEVE IN. I'm not even convinced Hillary is a better candidate than trump! Honestly, this shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
Do I think there is any interesting philosophical debate to be had about this? Yes, I think there are strong arguments on each side, I said earlier i think this can lead to an interesting philosophical discussion. But it's definitely not one I want to have with you.
And when you then go on to say that you won't vote for the lesser of two evils, you show yourself to be emotionally volatile and an unreliable vote. You are not the sort of person either political party worries about catering to because, as you are pointing out, you are just sitting this election out. You won't vote either way, so who cares about what you think? There's no reason to represent the views of someone who isn't going to vote.
okay, so they won't pander to me - that's fantastic, what the heck is your point.
I don't know how old you are, but you have shown a lot of characteristics of someone probably 25-35, which is the younger block that tends to lack representation. I would be surprised if you were older than 35. Regardless of your age, your commitment to the idea of not voting for the lesser of two evils already puts you in the "illogical and unreliable" bin to political strategists. Young people's tendency to give up on politics when their dog in the race loses is a really big deal. Young people need to feel like they have momentum on their side because they don't appreciate the time it takes for real change to happen. When it looks like the kind of thing that will take real commitment, they yell oligarchy and go back to business as usual.
I don't give a fuck about political strategists, and as I said already, Bernie losing has nothing to do with me not voting for the other candidates.
On May 11 2016 05:16 biology]major wrote:
Agreed, voting is a duty. Otherwise your opinions and views are irrelevant, because you aren't even representing yourself so why should anyone else?
Firstly, voting is not "a duty". Simply saying it is does not make it so.
Secondly, if the purpose of voting is to choose someone who represents you (as you seem to be implying and I would agree is the case) - then please explain what you are supposed to do when no candidate represents your beliefs?
|
On May 11 2016 05:21 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:09 Mohdoo wrote:On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something? A material benefit is something that you can hold, touch or otherwise physically appreciate. The warm fuzzy feeling of knowing you didn't vote for someone you dislike is not a material benefit. You sound whiny because you are making it clear that you are withholding your vote unless you are properly catered to. You come across as inflexible and illogical. You are essentially dismissing the idea of a lesser of two evils, which is even more silly. I know what a material benefit is. I didn't say material benefit, because I don't actually need a material benefit in order to do things. Ok yes, I am withholding my vote unless I am "properly catered to". What a strange way to put it. Well, I know why you put it that way, because you are trying to make it sound bad. Guess what, I DON'T WANT TO SHOW MY SUPPORT FOR SOMEONE I DON'T BELIEVE IN. I'm not even convinced Hillary is a better candidate than trump! Honestly, this shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Do I think there is any interesting philosophical debate to be had about this? Yes, I think there are strong arguments on each side, I said earlier i think this can lead to an interesting philosophical discussion. But it's definitely not one I want to have with you. Show nested quote +
And when you then go on to say that you won't vote for the lesser of two evils, you show yourself to be emotionally volatile and an unreliable vote. You are not the sort of person either political party worries about catering to because, as you are pointing out, you are just sitting this election out. You won't vote either way, so who cares about what you think? There's no reason to represent the views of someone who isn't going to vote.
okay, so they won't pander to me - that's fantastic, what the heck is your point. Show nested quote +
I don't know how old you are, but you have shown a lot of characteristics of someone probably 25-35, which is the younger block that tends to lack representation. I would be surprised if you were older than 35. Regardless of your age, your commitment to the idea of not voting for the lesser of two evils already puts you in the "illogical and unreliable" bin to political strategists. Young people's tendency to give up on politics when their dog in the race loses is a really big deal. Young people need to feel like they have momentum on their side because they don't appreciate the time it takes for real change to happen. When it looks like the kind of thing that will take real commitment, they yell oligarchy and go back to business as usual.
I don't give a fuck about political strategists, and as I said already, Bernie losing has nothing to do with me not voting for the other candidates.
Young liberals not voting because they don't have someone extreme enough is the whole reason the GOP has been able to do what it does. It is directly the fault of that voting block why things are as bad as they are in the US. And its a self perpetuating cycle. Candidates not extreme enough? Don't vote, other side wins, country gets more conservative, voting block votes even less, conservatives win even more elections, and suddenly the youth vote keeps complaining about how awful this thing they created is without any desire to take responsibility for it.
Not voting is literally destroying the liberals of this country.
EDIT
Just saw your edit up there, would like to answer it.
Voting is 0% about having someone who represents you and is 100% about building a team of people who can best represent and push your agendas. To do that you need a combination of idealists, pragmatists, charismatic types, etc... You need a local government that will actually implement the programs, a state government who will actually fun the programs, a house/senate who will actually fight for the programs, and a president to veto the bad programs.
You wanting to feel catered to, you wanting someone who is as similar to you--that's a mirage. Its bullshit the GOP sells its people that makes you end with presidents like George Bush just because he had the same ideals as the majority at the time.
Voting is not about electing a hero, its about electing a team.
|
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state.
|
On May 11 2016 05:21 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:09 Mohdoo wrote:On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something? A material benefit is something that you can hold, touch or otherwise physically appreciate. The warm fuzzy feeling of knowing you didn't vote for someone you dislike is not a material benefit. You sound whiny because you are making it clear that you are withholding your vote unless you are properly catered to. You come across as inflexible and illogical. You are essentially dismissing the idea of a lesser of two evils, which is even more silly. I know what a material benefit is. I didn't say material benefit, because I don't actually need a material benefit in order to do things. Ok yes, I am withholding my vote unless I am "properly catered to". What a strange way to put it. Well, I know why you put it that way, because you are trying to make it sound bad. Guess what, I DON'T WANT TO SHOW MY SUPPORT FOR SOMEONE I DON'T BELIEVE IN. I'm not even convinced Hillary is a better candidate than trump! Honestly, this shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Do I think there is any interesting philosophical debate to be had about this? Yes, I think there are strong arguments on each side, I said earlier i think this can lead to an interesting philosophical discussion. But it's definitely not one I want to have with you. Show nested quote +
And when you then go on to say that you won't vote for the lesser of two evils, you show yourself to be emotionally volatile and an unreliable vote. You are not the sort of person either political party worries about catering to because, as you are pointing out, you are just sitting this election out. You won't vote either way, so who cares about what you think? There's no reason to represent the views of someone who isn't going to vote.
okay, so they won't pander to me - that's fantastic, what the heck is your point. Show nested quote +
I don't know how old you are, but you have shown a lot of characteristics of someone probably 25-35, which is the younger block that tends to lack representation. I would be surprised if you were older than 35. Regardless of your age, your commitment to the idea of not voting for the lesser of two evils already puts you in the "illogical and unreliable" bin to political strategists. Young people's tendency to give up on politics when their dog in the race loses is a really big deal. Young people need to feel like they have momentum on their side because they don't appreciate the time it takes for real change to happen. When it looks like the kind of thing that will take real commitment, they yell oligarchy and go back to business as usual.
I don't give a fuck about political strategists, and as I said already, Bernie losing has nothing to do with me not voting for the other candidates. Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:16 biology]major wrote:
Agreed, voting is a duty. Otherwise your opinions and views are irrelevant, because you aren't even representing yourself so why should anyone else?
Firstly, voting is not "a duty". Simply saying it is does not make it so. Secondly, if the purpose of voting is to choose someone who represents you (as you seem to be implying and I would agree is the case) - then please explain what you are supposed to do when no candidate represents your beliefs?
This is the problem. The purpose of voting isn't to choose someone that best represents you.
The purpose of voting is to decide who will have the legal ability to coerce your fellow citizens into doing something. If we were just trying to elect people that represented all of our views, that would be stupid; we could just put everything to a popular referendum and then you could represent your views yourself. The purpose of a representative democracy is to elect the individuals that you feel are most qualified to run the country (since it's impossible for a citizen to be reasonably qualified to make significant legislative decisions while also being a regular Jo working a job and whatnot). This may not be the person that 100% aligns with your views, but it's the individual that you feel is overall the best option out of the choices available and will lead the country in the best policy-related direction while not harming the interests of you and your fellow citizens with the power that you're giving them.
This is where the ethical responsibility of the vote comes in. By voting, you are agreeing to give someone the power to force your neighbor to do (or not to do) something. By not voting, you haven't contributed to trying to keep an unqualified individual (e.g. Trump) out of office, and therefore keeping an incredible amount of power out of his unqualified hands.
|
Which is why there should be a "none of the above" option, so people who don't support any of the candidates can express that.
Are there any studies which show what kind of long-term systemic effects and results occur when using different ethical principles to decide how one should vote?
People have certainly mentioned quite a few different ways here, and I've always wondered how well each one works out. Until I can come up with a more solid answer, I just let people vote based on whichever system they deem best.
|
On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state.
Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point.
No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is).
I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are.
|
On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are.
The bold part is your core assumption that this whole debate centers around, and that discussion fills up entire books and journals with debate. I don't think it's really worth diving into here.
|
On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are.
Typical Bernie supporter I see 
This right here is tells us all we need to know about the kind of person you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
