Our third parties are actually worse than the options we have.
Though I kinda like Joe Exotic, now. Tough call between him and Maddox.
John Oliver proves just how pointless the Third parties are.
Our third parties are actually worse than the options we have.
Though I kinda like Joe Exotic, now. Tough call between him and Maddox.
My goodness, these Youtube comments...I didn't realize people even said stuff like "ordained into the establishment" and "bought by the system" without embarrassment. What do they think the presidential race even is, in relation to their daily life...
"I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost."
I don't agree that they're worse than what we have. Sure, the Greens have 2 insane positions (foreign policy, refusal to strongly denounce crazy people), and the Libertarians literally don't understand foreign policy or government, but:
They're both anti war
They're both pro democracy
They're both not running candidates who are unregistered sex offenders, or who are in the pockets of big banks.
Worse? Dunno dude. Looks like a reall crapshoot to me.
Also, this is comedy television and should not be mistaken for journalism. You can play a short clip of Johnson (or Rick Perry) not knowing much about which departments do what, but at the same time, the man did govern a state with high approval ratings. You can play a clip of Jill Stein saying something true to an insane person to avoid letting said insane person know she disagrees with him, but do you think other candidates do anything different?
Last edited by The Burninator; 10-25-2016 at 05:19 PM.
Isn't that his main serious point? That all candidates are flawed, and that the ones more vilified by headlines aren't necessarily more flawed?Originally Posted by The Burninator
"I'm not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost."
A complete lack of understanding how the government functions really worries me more than anything else. Johnson's cutting of big government seems less like a chef trimming fat and more like a first time serial killer trying to dismember a body with no knowledge of medicine. Trump may be a monster, but at least he's actually been in business and has likely hired people to help him better understand government oversight (or at least the GOP has appointed people for it).
He got few soundbites and made it funny, but the reality is that Libertarian's fiscal policies are by far the best. Cut down overblown government, simplify the tax code ( and yes, Fair Tax works despite all liberal idiots trying to prove otherwise and themselves running us into unsustainable debt). Problem with Gary Jonson is he is not entirely libertarian. Still the best candidate out there.
Many servers. Since s4r1
It "works"... if you ignore that the unavoidable facts that it would A) cause a significant reduction in government revenue (and that not only means less money for running the government, but less money for paying off the national debt), and B) it heavily shifts the tax burden towards the poor (or, if the "prebates" are used, to the middle class), since, y'know, the rich are far more likely to stuff their money in offshore tax-havens than they are to spend it in the U.S., while the poor have to spend most or all of their money on necessities.
I don't know how in the hell the minds of those rich people work, but it's like they treat money as a trophy rather than a currency.
See this is why the little 3 second clips don't tell the full story. Both the Libertarian VP and P candidates HAVE run state governments. They were both at least marginally successful governors. You're arguing that their absurd 30 second clips disqualify them or make them worse than the big 2 -- but not only is Donald as clueless or more so, he's never done it before.
My points were twofold:
1) these attacks show that the third party candidates are not perfect. (Did anyone think they were?) The attacks you level against them are just as damaging against the big 2.
2) this is a source for amusement not journalism. There are journalistic pieces against even the candidate I like most -- Jill Stein -- that I largely agree with. (For example, I largely agree that the Left deserves better than Jill Stein, for largely practical reasons like those given in this article: http://inthesetimes.com/features/les...y_clinton.html) These kinds of attacks on Stein, for example, are warranted. But while I agree that 30 second clips of Johnson are funny, they're not accurate representations of him as a potential president. Oliver doesn't need to work to put them in the context of Johnson or Weld's successful runs as state governors or the larger context of their overall platform -- in which there is quite a lot to legitimately criticize. The point is that you can and should recognize the reasons that the third party candidates aren't perfect, but this isn't a particularly compelling source for such arguments.
You guys touch on everything but the Veritas tapes and wikileaks.
I've read the highlights on the wikileaks releases and didn't find anything so damning that I'd switch from her to Trump.
I don't think that the Veritas tapes prove much, except that if you edit statements without context, you can get anyone to be saying virtually anything you want them to be saying. But worse than that, it's not even plausible that the Dems will be rigging the election. The GOP controls most states, therefore controls most of the election oversight -- and they hate Hillary. Furthermore, given the near impossibility of a Trump win, it would be totally unnecessary. It'd be like George Washington trying to rig the first presidential election. What would be the point? It's not like anyone was going to beat him! (Most poll-based forecasts, which base their election-day vote predictions on polls of real voters, have 90-99% chance of Hillary. Fivethirtyeight, which is the most conservative estimator, has like 85% chance of Hillary. You don't get much surer things than that.)
John Olivier has been a Hillary shill for months now. HBO are huge donors to the Clinton campaign, but nowhere near as big as HBO's owners, Time Warner.
I used to like this guy's show, but he's as bought and owned as Shillary.
#JillStein2016
I'm registered Green Party.
The view that every other party is worse is quite a partisan viewpoint, every member of any political party views that their party is a better option.
I'm a Green Party member because as a citizen and taxpayer I would like government resources used for environmental protection, a reduction of carbon emmissions, alternatives to petroleum in order to alliviate the disasters caused by oil spills, pollution, irreplaceable damage to the environment such as fracking and deep sea drilling.
And I'd rather see my taxes use productively such as for cleaner and modern infrastructure, and I view debt relief of student debt as beneficial to the nation. - to note, my student debt is low and manageable and I don't personally need nor want relief, but many out of college graduates are in dire situations and have suffered credit damage due to debt - I feel this is quite urgent as a country.
If anyone would like to talk about the cost of universal healthcare, social security, and education that the Green Party supports. Perhaps we can have a conversation about the already spent trillions of dollars on the Republican and Democrats wars in the Middle East, and how both Republican and Democratic candidates hope to continue their wars, - the US is spending billions a month dropping bombs in a desert on the opposite side of the globe, but investment in poor cities and rural America - no money for that.
edit: The war on ISIS costs about ~$11 million per day, Hillary and John McCain proposed no-fly zone in Syria would cost an extra $1 Billion per month.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/31...t-1b-per-month
Last edited by Summer; 10-26-2016 at 01:57 AM.
Read highlights? Way to make an informed decision. You sound like Pox.
Easy to edit? That goes both ways, of course, Trump didn't buy off the FBI.
Last edited by The Blazin1; 10-26-2016 at 02:04 AM.
You're saying that no one who didn't read the entirety of Wikileaks released leaked emails is uninformed?
By that logic, not only are YOU uninformed, NO ONE is informed. (Even Hillary probably didn't read all her emails.)
What I did was look at the emails people who want Hillary to look bad pointed out as the worst of the worst, and didn't think they were that bad. Got a better idea? (No, scrolling through thousands and thousands of pages of emails doesn't count as a "better idea.")
Agreed and granted, happily.
True. Of course, neither did Hillary.
Why are you putting one figure in $/day and one in $/month?
Two different sources.
To be clear $11 million p/day is current operations against ISIS, with the edit intended to be a correction of my original post, and the $1 Billion p/month is the estimated cost of a proposed no-fly zone in Syria.
http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/fea...rt-15Dec15.pdf
http://thehill.com/images/stories/ne...22/dempsey.pdf
Last edited by Summer; 10-26-2016 at 03:43 AM.
Hillary has spent her life as a "public servant." Trump has been in the private sector. There are enough trails leading to Hillary that it warrants real investigation, but no one is doing it. If you don't smell bull**** your allergies are acting up.
TB, I didn't say all, I called you out for seeing highlights, highlights tend to lean to the same side as the source as providing these "highlights." I tried to explain this to Pox as well, but he didn't understand either. Simply, look at everything you can, and base your opinion off that. You loom at pros and cons, you get the extremist from both sides getting the most coverage, thus the highlights. Both are biased.
Last edited by The Blazin1; 10-26-2016 at 03:43 AM.
Ok, this is fine, Blaze, but here's where I am:
I support Hillary over Donald.
You seem to agree that to get the most biased-against-Hillary stuff out of wikileaks, I ought to go look at what Trump people think is important.
This is what I did.
I didn't think that this was particularly damning, so I continue to support Hillary over Trump.
Is that irrational of me?
And this is why we'll always have it as a two party election. No.one ever respects the other options.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12602
There's the list of emails on Syria and Libya planing the regime change of Qadafi and Assad.
Perhaps it depends on perspective, but I'm quite appalled.
The emails basically boast of creating an insurrection to overthrow the Syrian leader with quote "in Syria heads will roll, and for Bashar, hopefully his own."
I'm not sure how you feel about civil wars and the hundreds of thousands of dead now in Syria, including the destruction of some of the oldest historic sites in history. The emails talk of cooperation with Turkey as an avenue to provide fighters (non-syrians) and arms to dispose Assad. - again it depends on your perspective, you seem to be ok with this kind of behavior.
Given how hawkish Republicans tend to be, they probably approve of Hillary's hawkishness. Republicans are ok with war and regime change in far off lands, it's the emails from her private email that they seem to be upset at.
For Greens, it's the whole 'laying destruction in far off lands that creates blowback' thing that people to the left of Hillary are upset about.
Last edited by Summer; 10-26-2016 at 04:29 AM.
I'm sorry, I have to say this.
Cis, you posted directly after Burns post which was extremely civil. He points out why he thinks what he does, has a rational argument and then asks if Blazin thinks it's irrational. How on gods purple earth do you get a lack of respect from that? If you mean Blazin is showing disrespect, even he had a very civil post(!). Disagreeing with someones opinion is not the same as disrespecting it. For example, I both disagree and disrespect your and wodens opinion on most feminism issues. I might disagree and not disrespect those of others like Burn and a few others who come from a less blinkered position. Some people I might agree with but disrespect anyway because they come from idiocy.
Now for the actual response.
No that is not why. The why is because of your electoral system. In this case ref the poxxed ones posts.
I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots
I was referring to the OP. If I had been responding to anyone's particular post, I would have quoted it. I'm a bit behind due to no internet for 4 days. But that's ok. We're all used to you jumping to conclusions and making ASSumptions. As well as your obsessive need to try to prove anyone's opinion as wrong because it's not yours.
Probably should have used your non mod persona for that dearie.
I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots
Jill's ONLY political experience is Town of Lexington Town Meeting Representative. She has no experience outside of that at all. And those 30 second clips outline their major economic policies and show just how bad of a pipe dream they really are. Also: Johnson saying he'd cut Department of Education, Commerce, Housing and Urban development is ludicrous without even knowing what they do bothers me. If you're going to say you're going to cut something make ******* sure you know what they deal with.
There's a LOT more than that. But when the third options this year defy all logic it's hard to respect them.
My goal was to show that 30 second clips don't tell full stories -- both Libs did successfully run state governments which suggests that their apparent cluelessness in 30 second clips speaks of something else. I also happen to think that Stein is poorly represented by these short selections. I agree that a valid criticism of her is her impracticality, as I have said above, but I don't think it's cluelessness.
Now on Johnson, note that NJ DID eliminate Commerce years ago, salvaging what operations it could but still cutting many employees. Commerce is mostly corporate welfare, so IMO, whether he knows the specifics or not is irrelevant to me because I think the department should be eliminated.
Dropping Education is a much less good idea.
These are literally the same two Lib / Green candidates as last go around.
Are you saying that you won't respect any candidate unless they agree with you on everything?
Cause that's what it starts to sound like you're asking for and frankly it's not a reasonable thing to ask for. Democracy's foundation is compromise.
@ the discussion about civility: I'm not always civil, but if there is another person who believes differently from me, it might be for good reason, so I want to know. Blaze strikes me as a person who is motivated by plausible feelings, so he deserves my civility as far as I'm concerned. Now, fair warning, if you want civility, you ought to stop reading this post now while you're ahead.
Firstly, if you're not willing to have a serious discussion that considers evidence that disagrees with your a priori position, I'm not going to go the whole 9 yards with you on this on yet another thread.
There's a video of Hillary saying something like "we came, we saw, he died," and then laughing maniacally with regards to Ghaddafi. We already knew she was a warmonger. I'm not sure what new revelation you're aiming for here.
Your capacity at being appalled over the same revelation over and over again is impressive.
There is a story by Kirkegaard of a man who escapes an asylum and does not wish to return. As such, he strives to appear sane. So what does he do? He makes sure he says only very sane things. "The sky is blue and grass is green," he repeats over and over again. "The sky is blue," he insists. "The grass is green," he insists.
He ends up back in the asylum.
There is a certain insanity to repeating something that captures individual truths over and over and over and not moving on.
In conclusion, yes, Hillary is a warmonger and that counts against her.
Anything else?
*Yawn.*
Obviously as an avowed pacifist -- declared repeatedly in past threads -- and someone who has argued against American intervention in the particular case of Syria repeatedly (can I get a throwback to the first thing I said? "if you're not willing to have a serious discussion that considers evidence that *disagrees* with your a priori position, I'm not going to go the whole 9 yards with you again"), if you can't figure out how I feel about needless death and suffering that serves no greater purpose, then I'm sorry to inform you that English might not be the language for you.
I don't know what you're trying to accuse. I have said that I am against funneling arms to the Syrians, my friend from the asylum who insists on repeating a true point over and over.
You're attacking me because I am FOR funneling arms to the Peshmerga?
I'm sorry that I don't close my eyes and say "funneling arms is always bad" until it becomes true.
Actually, I'm not sorry at all. I don't believe funneling arms is *always* bad. I believe it's bad when it's bad, as in Syria -- and I don't know what kind of reading difficulty you're having with all my prior posts what clearly said arming Syrian rebels is bad, so I don't expect you to be able to see this with your eyes closed as they are, but for the record: arming Syrian rebels is bad.
I don't know where you're going with this, but I'm not against regime change a priori either. I fully support American operations supporting regime change in Mussolini's Italy, for example.
They're also upset that she did Benghazi and 9/11.
Your argument is weak and lacks leadership.
Yeah, the blowback we got from saving Rwanda was pretty bad.
Oh, wait, we never intervened there and got significant blowback for it. My bad. Bad example.
Yeah, the blowback we got from intervening in Europe with the Marshall Plan and putting nukes in Germany to contain the Soviets resulted in some bad blowback.
Oh, no, wait, my mistake -- those interventions had positive effects.
Sorry I'm bad at that game you play where you only talk about the times it has had negative effects.
Wasn't invading Iraq awful? Yes, yes it was. Look at all those bad things that happened. Man, invading Iraq sucked. Let's never use violence again invading Syria is bad Iraq Iraq Syria.
#NailedIt.
Last edited by The Burninator; 10-26-2016 at 12:36 PM.
Why? There is no "persona" with me. Besides, fortunately, this is the only one I can actually see your posts in.
I don't find it irrational at all, I think if you have went over and look at everything, and you feel Hillary is the better for you, then I respect your choice.
I agree with this.
The Burninator seems to be aware that Hillary is a "warmongerer", and believes that arming rebels and staging regime change in Syria can be a good thing.
I think commitment to regime change in Syria is a costly venture and the outcome will not benefit America, nor the global community for that matter.
Given the recent history of regime change in areas within Syria's proximity i.e. Iraq, Libya, and Eygpt - the outcomes were disasterous, hundreds of thousands have died in Iraq with factions in Iraq in a constant state of warfare. With external groups adding fuel to the flames, the Sunnis are backed by Turkey and the Gulf states, the Shia militias are backed by Iran, the Kurds have been traditionally back by the Soviets and now Russia (until recently the PKK and YPG - the Kurdish militias in Turkey and Syria were on the USA's terror list) - Turkey, our ally in the region is at war with the Kurds, with the PKK receiving support from Russia. In short, the nature of the conflict is complex, toppling Assad will likely lead to Sunni dominance and an implementation of sharia law over all other ethnic groups and Syria's secular nature under Assad will cease to be.
Libya is also in chaos and Egypt under Sisi is even more oppressive than Mubarak, Egypt under Sisi after being scrutinized by the USA is now opening closer ties with Russia.
Last edited by Summer; 10-26-2016 at 04:40 PM.
OK then. Obviously you got over the whole teal thing then I assume. Good Oh. Game on.
edit: I was just assuming mods were supposed to be held to some sort of higher standard 'tis all. Don't get me wrong, I actually like to see you insult me for the sake of it, I'm not complaining. I just didn't want you to get into trouble. Believe it or not, I do hold the commitment to do modding in some regard. Not that I would ever do it, but for those who do.. 'on ya.
Last edited by Rokchick; 10-26-2016 at 04:44 PM.
I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots
Apparently not.
Part I:
Part II
and last time you attacked me in an identical manner...
Part III:
Congrats. You win the prize for continuing to repeat the same point of agreement the most times. Your prize is nothing. Did TB call the support for that, or what...?
Summer what would probably break this argument wide open is if you assume I support arming Syrians again then explain how bad an idea that is by explaining how Iraq and Libya and Egypt are crapholes. So if you want to write me another 6 inches with exactly that argument changed very slightly, that'll probably do it. Especially if you add in an extra point about how the sky really is blue.
Second opinion, forum, is summer trolling me, is it that he can't read, or am I missing something?
Last edited by The Burninator; 10-26-2016 at 05:52 PM.
Here is where The Burninator is difficult to follow.
He states that he is a pacifist, then acknowledges that the candidate he is voting for is a warmonger, he says he supports regime change -which has so far been implemented by arming rebel groups. Yet, he has pointed out that he is against arming rebels. Perhaps he supports Bush's method of US occupation of Syria?
My opinion is that Hillary's aim of regime change by means of arming rebels and implementing a no-fly zone in Syria is a costly and bad idea.
History supports just how bad of an idea this is.
And here was me thinking it was an attempt to make the second number look bigger...
I don't agree with Burn on some of it (a lot in detail), but it's pretty clear that all he is saying is 1. You are giving no new arguments and 2. that he doesn't like something generally, but the practical alternative is worse. It is a simple concept, and applies to most political arguments. It certainly applies to most candidates in most elections I've voted in. By virtue of them standing they are almost all narcissists and should be disqualified just for that.
Burn, he's not trolling. He's less likely to than most (except you). He's just got a fly buzzing in his head and it won't stop.
I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots
Good.
I'm glad I wasn't actually being opaque.
I'm a pacifist, but arming others isn't the same as the commission of violence.
I'd rather there be no need for American arms in certain situations, but it's clear that there are cases where the alternative is worse. The tricky part is figuring out when military force is justified and when it isn't. It usually isn't, but you can't just claim that "it's always bad," then repeatedly cite the same 3 examples over and over again as the sum total of the proof.
Certainly, as argued by Edward Rhodes, much more effectively than Summer, regime-changing military effort in the Mideast is misguided.
Of course, since the position is too subtle, Summer will interpret me as saying the literal opposite of what I am actually saying! I can't wait for the shenanigans.
When put in perspective, the Republican candidate wants a costly wall with Mexico, the Democrat candidate wants a costly no-fly zone in Syria, and the Green party candidate wants debt relief for American students.
and this thread is about how much more ridiculous third party ideals are than the two major parties.
Yet Americans will vote for it out of fears of something worse.
edit: arming rebels to overthrow a leader is wrong, not misguided, wrong considering how weapons end up in the hands of groups like ISIS and then used for mass murder, ethnic cleansing, a brutal rule of law.
The consequences of intervention Iraq, Libya, and Syria were known, and the same misguidance will continue to occur.
Last edited by Summer; 10-27-2016 at 03:43 AM.
We are controlled by our fears and politicians have been using that stick for a while now. NYC was kept scared for years with the various colored alert systems for the day. Tourists would be terrified to use the subways.
This is how Bush got so much support attacking a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
Generally, yes. However if there is a leader committing war crimes on his people, genocide and worse, do you suggest the world stands by and lets him? How about if your enemy is arming one side to get into a position of being able to to attack and destroy you? Nothing is absolute in politics.
I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots
The answer is no.
In regards to arming rebels, arming rebel factions does more harm than good - for reasons below:
1. It violates international law and sets a bad precedent.
Arming rebels in conflicts or to stage conflicts invites other powers on the world stage to do the same. This has become quite common already, but the end result is proxy war that is prolonged by a flow of arms, not to mention the impacts of war that destroys infrastructure, and war creates poverty where those weapons are no longer used by freedom fighters but instead sold on the black market and end up in the hands of criminals. I agree that it's bad if Russia does it for instance, but it's better to have higher standards.
2. Arming rebels has had some very negative impacts.
The US has armed rebel groups that countered influence of the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan the US armed Islamic rebels to dispose of the Soviet occupation. Those rebels included Osama bin Laden and his group was al Qaeda, the Taliban were so successful with American weapons that they took over Afghanistan and imposed a strict Islamic authority that included numerous
human rights abuses. So far the Taliban is still in power in much of Afghanistan and the USA is bogged down in a costly war there, fighting the same group that the US once armed.
In Libya rebel groups were armed in order to dispose Qaddafi, they did, but the country is currently in chaos and filled with many US supplied weapons that are being used by terrorists. Being so close to Europe and if not contained the chaos in Libya could potentially spill over to other parts of north Africa and impact Europe.
In Syria, the US has been arming rebels to dispose of Assad. Rebels groups in Syria have committed atrocities of their own, and have implemented authoritarian rule of their own in the regions they control. The flow of arms prolongs conflict and violence begets violence.
3) There are alternatives.
Before rushing to arm rebels to bring down an awful leader. One should realize that there are other options, such as the ICC or international criminal court in the Hague, Netherlands. Here, cases can be brought up against authoritarian rulers who are accused of committing war crimes, it proceeds like a court and if found guiltly, individuals will be held accountable for their crimes. The UN security counsel is responsible for apprehension and criminals are brought to justice.
Another alternative is to let people decide their government.
"Every nation has the government it deserves." - is a fine quote. If Saudis wish to live under authoritarian sharia law, let them, if populations choose to live in one-party authoritarian regimes - let them live there too. If anyone is oppressed by their leaders and choose to embrace democratic societies of the West, then the West should welcome them. As great as the ambition to spread democracy is, realize that many around the world veiw democracy as corrupt and money driven, choosing instead rule by religious law - it's just how it is. Many around the world prefer dictators as in their mind they prefer stability and security under a strongman.
Last edited by Summer; 10-27-2016 at 04:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
