This Whole Thing Reminds Me Of Racism And Discrimination

[hairblues]

haha there has never been a candidate that I even think comes close to "perfect". In fact, I have never voted for someone who wouldn't have me behind bars because I like to smoke weed/take drugs etc. I highly doubt I will ever even respect the person I vote for, not to mind a "perfect person".

I believe i said this. People still have to choose.

you are only 23 how many elections cycles have you actually voted in so far?

They are not there for you to 'respect' or like''they are there to do a job--you have two applicants (or several) and you pick who you think would do best job for your country as a whole...If you are just choosing based on one issue that affects 'you' personally-then that goes back to what i said our modern generations being selfish compared to ww2 generation for example who put Country before themselves.

 

[rclark]

Dirty muzzy lover

suffering from white guilt.

You caused global warming, and now you FEEL guilty because you live
in CANADA.

Let's be honest, you're really a Trump Supporter because you WANT
a HOLE in the OZONE layer.

If I lived in Canada, I would be a Trump supporter to. That, and he had
a cool TV show about firing people.

 

[SmoothSailing]

How the vote should be is irrelevant to how it actually is right now--again an other illogical stand point.

This is where we disagree. The only reason that third parties don't have success is because of your attitude. Does that make sense to you? You are the reason that there are only two options. It's hilarious to me to see you try and justify this position. I read your post, and as usual, you seem to be arguing things that I never argued against. Electoral process, Trump, judges,libertarian-ism.. this is all completely irrelevant to the point I am arguing.

I really think you should rethink this attitude. You should vote for the candidate you most support. This is not idealism, this is how voting should and could (if it weren't for people like you) work.

Improving things does not mean making it worse first just to prove a point that you are not a 'hypocrite' or you are being 'logical' when its not realistic in that time frame with variable circumstances that point out its better to make the 'lesser of two evil' choice instead.

Why are you constantly implying that I want to make things worse? I'm asking for people to vote for the candidate they most support, not asking people to vote in retards like Trump. If that candidate isn't third party that's fine.

They are not there for you to 'respect' or like''they are there to do a job--you have two applicants (or several) and you pick who you think would do best job for your country as a whole...If you are just choosing based on one issue that affects 'you' personally-then that goes back to what i said our modern generations being selfish compared to ww2 generation for example who put Country before themselves.

ah f*** off, I'm voting for how it affects me personally as well as how it affects everyone else, and I think it's retarded to use the excuse "they are not there for you to respect". No they are not, but I would like a candidate I respect and that doesn't demonize my behaviors and actively try to lock me in a cage for my life choices.

Is it so much to want someone who at least has some similar views to myself?

I'm young, but so far I've only seen things get worse. Completely cynical about the political future.

 

[rclark]

Obama's nobel peace prizes is one of the most ridiculous jokes I've ever seen.

I have a decent sense of humour in real life, I'm sure you do too. But in our entire lives, we will likely never make a joke as funny as Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

That's not true.

Trump will have the next peace prize.

Next month, Steve Banner has been promoted to VP to announce it!

 

[hairblues]

This is where we disagree. The only reason that third parties don't have success is because of your attitude. Does that make sense to you? You are the reason that there are only two options. It's hilarious to me to see you try and justify this position. I read your post, and as usual, you seem to be arguing things that I never argued against. Electoral process, Trump, judges,libertarian-ism.. this is all completely irrelevant to the point I am arguing.

I really think you should rethink this attitude. You should vote for the candidate you most support. This is not idealism, this is how voting should and could (if it weren't for people like you) work.
.

Again you are looking at it in absolutes this math like a computer or equation out look that is not practical.

Its political science not Earth science.

You point is a phantom ideal..that you dont take into account all the variables shows your 'logic' is not logical approach to this subject matter.

I never said DON'T support these candidates I was not a pro Hillary person. I though Bernie Sanders should have run as a 3rd party when the Green Party made him the offer to have Jill Stein step aside.
He chose not to and he chose to support HRC out of logic.
I listened to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. I watched what they had to say obsessively.
And neither was a good candidate and MOST Of the people supporting them were doing it for the idea to protest the two main candidates as both were unpopular.

So no i was not going to waste my vote on either of them--they were jokes.

Now if Bernie had run and it was too close as it was with HRC and Trump--i would have voted on the day for HRC because of this particular election wth Trump being in the mix because it would have been better for my country as a whole.

I am not sure how you put aside so many variables yet you make this bold absolutes...that is NOT logic. That is idealism. And idealism is not practical in all situations.

Why are you constantly implying that I want to make things worse? I'm asking for people to vote for the candidate they most support, not asking people to vote in retards like Trump. If that candidate isn't third party that's fine.


.

Im not implying 'you' want to make things worse...I am implying the approach to blindly support a 3rd party candidate the day of election when its too close to tell who will win and you may in reality wind up with a Trump---that it would indeed make things worse.

I said if it was Bush vs Clinton for example they are so closely related in policy (other than supreme court pics which is very huge issue in US more important than President) That i can somewhat understand it..but it was Trump.


I am not sure why someone who wants so badly to embrace logic in situations does not want to take into account all the variables to make a well informed logical choice.

Your logic is not realistic in this cycle of 2016. You can't have an absolute logic in all situation when it comes to politics and Govt because it's not 'math' or 'science'.
You are making it deliberately simple for yourself in order NOT to analyze it and come to the conclusion that you may have to actually make a choice you DONT like in order to actually BE logical for that given situation.

ah f*** off, I'm voting for how it affects me personally as well as how it affects everyone else, and I think it's retarded to use the excuse "they are not there for you to respect". No they are not, but I would like a candidate I respect and that doesn't demonize my behaviors and actively try to lock me in a cage for my life choices.

Is it so much to want someone who at least has some similar views to myself?

I'm young, but so far I've only seen things get worse. Completely cynical about the political future.

You just proved what i wrote earlier

We are becoming more and more centered on our own selves when voting and not the country as a whole

And seriously telling me to 'f*** off'--where the f*** did that come from??
what a waste of time to have you say that to me.

 

[hairblues]

Think i am done with the impact section

Adios guys. I you want to contact me about something to do with hair just PM me.

 

[sunchyme1]

Think i am done with the impact section

Adios guys. I you want to contact me about something to do with hair just PM me.

lol you guys broke hb

i thought you were stronger than that man!

 

[hairblues]

lol you guys broke hb

i thought you were stronger than that man!

No, not really, not with a poster I always treated with respect. that just seemed from left field.

I am also getting my period so it is possible i am over sensitive.

But i think i need a break from this section. Or i am going to have to take up boxing.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Bye @hairblues, I'm glad we finished on better terms than we were at a couple months ago.

You've contributed a lot of knowledge to this forum.

Best of luck.

 

[SmoothSailing]

And seriously telling me to 'f*** off'--where the f*** did that come from??
what a waste of time to have you say that to me.

f*** off telling me I shouldn't vote based on personal issues.

I'd rather the country go to sh*t than give up anymore of my liberties.

Your logic is not realistic in this cycle of 2016. You can't have an absolute logic in all situation when it comes to politics and Govt because it's not 'math' or 'science'.
You are making it deliberately simple for yourself in order NOT to analyze it and come to the conclusion that you may have to actually make a choice you DONT like in order to actually BE logical for that given situation.

As I said I think I will always be making a choice I don't like. If everybody applied my "absolute" logic then voting would work better and you wouldn't have people voted in whom only a small minority support.

People like you are the reason the US only has two sides, left and right. Here we view that as idiotic. Maybe we're the idiots, but I doubt it when people like Trump get elected.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

No, not really, not with a poster I always treated with respect. that just seemed from left field.

I am also getting my period so it is possible i am over sensitive.

But i think i need a break from this section. Or i am going to have to take up boxing.

Maybe have a rule like I do - never talk politics.

Just stick to rating men and women and giving advice to the incels.

 

[hairblues]

f*** off telling me I shouldn't vote based on personal issues.

I'd rather the country go to sh*t than give up anymore of my liberties.



As I said I think I will always be making a choice I don't like. If everybody applied my "absolute" logic then voting would work better and you wouldn't have people voted in whom only a small minority support.

People like you are the reason the US only has two sides, left and right. Here we view that as idiotic. Maybe we're the idiots, but I doubt it when people like Trump get elected.

You make the weakest arguments proof that you need to tell me to 'f*** off' when you dont like what i said

Your posts only prove what i said earilier--a conversation you chimed into and made about yourself and your opinion on US politics--clearly something you don't seem to understand from where you live.

I was speaking about USA--a country you don't even live in and from what you say don't know much about in our election process AND the consequences of our elections--about various scabinet members appointments the Presients make who all make policy that effects the country--including the Department of Justice, the there is the supreme court nominees that sit on bench for 40 years, federal court nominees..

You have this philosophy or opinion of what should be that it would be 'better' this way.

I nuanced the argument with FACTS to show you are trying to use 'logic' in an illogical manner for THIS situation in This country and THIS specific election cycle

So you can either go back and re read each post to learn what i am talking about--OR continue to stand rigid and unbending in your personal philosophy about 'elections in general'

It's actually deliberately ignorant.

You want to live life based on 'philosophies' and idealism---thats fine go for it but you sound really ignorant for the specific USA election of 2016--considering all 4 of our candidates this cycle--how it broke down state by state--the bigger stakes of the elections beyond what you 'see' from your limited perspective of living 23 years on this Earth from f*****g Ireland.

Go educate yourself about USA Government, civics and all its intricacies, how it actually runs and then get back to me about your idealist perspectives.

Meanwhile in Ireland vote the f*** how you want i can give two shits--i dont pretend to understand Ireland politics and what works and does not work each election cycle..I'm not that arrogant to present that i do.

But know what the f*** you are talking aobut from USA perspective.

 

[SmoothSailing]

You make the weakest arguments proof that you need to tell me to 'f*** off' when you odnt like what i said

Your posts only prove what i said earilier--a conversation you chimed into and made about yourself

I was speaking about USA--a country you don't even live in and from what you say dont know much about in our election process AND the consequences of our elections--cabnet members appointments who all make policy including the Department of Justice, supreme court nominee, federal court nominees..

You have this philosophy or opinion of what should be that it would be 'better'

I nuanced the argument with FACTS to show you are trying to use 'logic' in an illogical manner for THIS situation in This country and THIS specific election cycle

So you can either go back and re read each post to see what i am talking about--OR continue to stand rigid and unbending in your personal philosophy about 'elections in general'

It's actually deliberately ignorant.

You want to live life based on 'philosophies' and idealism---thats fine go for it but you sound really ignorant for the USA election of 2016--all 4 of our candidates--how it broke down state by state--the bigger states of the elections beyond what you 'see' from your limited perspective of living 23 years on Earth and in Ireland.

Go educate yourself about USA Government and all its intricacies, how it actually runs and then get back to me.

Meanwhile in Ireland vote the f*** how you want i can give two shits

But know what the f*** you are talking aobut from USA perspective.

Of course I'm not well educated on the US elections. I'm arguing about how people should vote in any election, in any country. There is nothing in any of your posts that makes me rethink my thoughts on this. Maybe you should look into how Irish elections happen, and how we are not simply split left or right.

And I am sure I'm far more ignorant than you, or any educated American, on the last election. I barely looked into any of the candidates and was looking at it mainly from my own perspective, as a non-US person.

My argument applies regardless of who is being elected, what the current issues are, or anything like that.

 

[hairblues]

Of course I'm not well educated on the US elections. I'm arguing about how people should vote in any election, in any country. There is nothing in any of your posts that makes me rethink my thoughts on this. Maybe you should look into how Irish elections happen, and how we are not simply split left or right.

And I am sure I'm far more ignorant than you, or any educated American, on the last election. I barely looked into any of the candidates and was looking at it mainly from my own perspective, as a non-US person.

My argument applies regardless of who is being elected, what the current issues are, or anything like that.

That you dont want to learn from someone who you just said is probably better informed than you on this specific election YET insist your opinion is still valid in an abstract manner--is really being deliberatly ignorant to the facts and as much as you profess 'logic' as your mainstay--its illogical
You are not talking reality you are talking 'philosophy'.

If you go back over my posts you will see me clearly write that i agree that 3rd party is great and that next election it may be a better reality in the specific choices
Do you know anything about Jil Stein?
DO you know anything about Gary Johnson?
These were our 3rd party candidates for 2016

You are throwing out generalities to someone who was making very nuanced and specific arguments..its almost ridiculous to have this conversation with you anymore.

yes generally speaking 3rd party candidates are fantastic option.
This cycle?--not so much it gave us Trump.
By people voting 3rd party we got Trump to flip at least 3 standardly blue states red.

IF you think that is a good thing because the 'principle' of it---then you are not actually being logical. You are then being an ideologue. I personally don't really respect ideologues they are too rigid and ridiculous. It is not practical in matters of Govt to be a devout Ideologue regardless of bases of 'base' politics views.

 

[SmoothSailing]

That you dont want to learn from someone who you just said is probably better informed than you on this specific election YET insist your opinion is still valid in an abstract manner--is really being deliberatly ignorant to the facts and as much as you profess 'logic' as your mainstay--its illogical
You are not talking reality you are talking 'philosophy'.

If you go back over my posts you will see me clearly write that i agree that 3rd party is great and that next election it may be a better reality in the specific choices
Do you know anything about Jil Stein?
DO you know anything about Gary Johnson?
These were our 3rd party candidates for 2016

You are throwing out generalities to someone who was making very nuanced and specific arguments..its almost ridiculous to have this conversation with you anymore.

yes generally speaking 3rd party candidates are fantastic option.
This cycle?--not so much it gave us Trump.
By people voting 3rd party we got Trump to flip at least 3 standardly blue states red.

IF you think that is a good thing because the 'principle' of it---then you are not actually being logical. You are then being an ideologue. I personally don't really respect ideologues they are too rigid and ridiculous. It is not practical in matters of Govt to be a devout Ideologue regardless of bases of 'base' politics views.

No you misunderstand me. I say vote for the candidate that you most like, whether that's Trump, Hilary, or third party. In no way am I saying people should vote third party out of the "principle". In fact I'm almost saying the opposite. Vote for the candidate you most support, not out of principle, not to vote against someone else, just vote for the candidate that you support the most.

From my limited knowledge I would think for me that it would be Gary Johnson, but as you've said I'm very ignorant on the issues and candidates. I never even looked into Jill Stein.

Don't vote for someone based on some "principle", I hope I didn't imply that you should.

 

[rclark]

Stop.. Come on man. You know more about the Obama bombings than I do. And I live in the U.S.

 

[hairblues]

I just want to add one more thing

It is very expensive to run for public office in USA--i have no idea if money is involved in Europes political system but to run for office you have to have huge amounts of money or you dont have a platform where you can get enough exposure.

We had Ross perot reach the threshold but he was a billionaire self financing his campaign.

So this idea that 'you should just embrace 3rd party' its like yes great idea why have we not thought of that? Except we have had 3rd party running almost every election cycle except they have never had enough funding (except Perot) to get the attention they need to make an impact.

This is because our Supreme Court ruled that Corporations--are 'people' with same rights and that campaign financing can be done with super packs...Those rulings are conservative judges perspective. Somthine that is dictated by the picks of President for Supreme court.

So how this goes is people who did NOT want to vote for either HRC or Trump but wanted to be good citizens and not sit out election chose a 3rd party candidate that best resonated with something they believed in...Green party is mostly environment..Liberterian is small Govt to an absurd extreme...Both candidates this cycle were inept people Gary Johnson and DR Jill Stein...
In the 3 states the people who voted for 3rd party tipped the scales for Trump by like 10,000 votes.

Now Trump will stack the Supreme court the next few years as they are all mostly in their 80s.
And he has vowed to the Special Interest groups of his Base ( for example the federalist and heritage foundation) that he wioul pick extreme Right judges.

SO the idea of getting BIG money out of politic campaigning is GONE.
So the idea of getting the playing field a bit more even so 3rd Party candidates CAN actually make an impact in an election by getting on debate stages is made even more difficult.

There is nuances to these things 'bigger' picture for long run what the best move is

Don't you play chess? This is life--what is my best move to get me to the end game. You dont try and get the King on the first try because the principle of the game is to win. You have to make strategic steps to get to the end game.

 

[sunchyme1]

welcome back hb

that break lasted about an hour

 

[hairblues]

welcome back hb

that break lasted about an hour

I know that conversation heated me up.

 

[SmoothSailing]

Don't you play chess? This is life--what is my best move to get me to the end game. You dont try and get the King on the first try because the principle of the game is to win. You have to make strategic steps to get to the end game.

Yes there's no denying that things are never straightforward, or even that it might be more beneficial to vote for your second or third favorite candidate at times. I still would argue that you should vote for who you think will do the job best. Voting works better if everyone does this. It is my ignorant opinion that this is something quite broken in the US elections. Most people here in Ireland would agree with me. Voting isn't some strategic game to me, it's about picking who I think is best suited for the job.