Doktor Avalanche Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Living in the United States has become almost a saturation of massive social and political dilemmas which barely reflect the rest of the world, yet we seem to be the focus of much of the attention, not rightly so. In the course of the last century there has been an increase in division between the political parties and the ideologies behind each party has increased the gorge which separates the two major parties and the independents. Today we see a rift in America. We see a division which several people have analyzed and have come to the conclusion that it is the other party's fault for all the problems caused in the United States. We have a horrible foreign policy. He have a horrible economic platform. We have a horrible education system. We have a horrible court system. We have a horrible prison system. We have a horrible healthcare system. We pretend that fixing the deficit is actually a cure to the debt but it only decreases how much we spend for that quarter. We lie to ourselves every time we justify voting for the lesser of two evils in every election. Is every issue we have always honestly the other Party's fault for such a horrible and deplorable state we are in right now? We have a choice in this election. We can vote for Hillary Clinton. We can vote for Donald Trump. We can vote for Gary Johnson. We can vote for Jill Stein. We also have the option to grab a cup of coffee instead. Because right now looking at my options for who best represents me, I think a Hazelnut Mocha Frappuccino sounds about right. The reason I am contemplating this is everyone running honestly sucks, and seriously sucks bad. Hillary is, no matter how much people deny it, a crooked life-long politician who has done nothing, not anyone, not helped a single minority, except profit off of others and feels it is her time to sit in the chair of POTUS because she deserves it, as every rich self serving white Democrat married to a narcissistic megalomaniac sheister feels. Donald Trump is Donald Trump. Gary Johnson, though I am probably closer to the Libertarian ideology than most others, is in fact not that great of a representative of the Libertarian Party nor is he promoting the platform- he did not balance the budget in New Mexico, but increased it- supports funding Planned Parenthood- supports Imminent Domain laws and believes people who refuse services to people for religious reasons should be punished by the law. Jill Stein, who I seriously love the ideology of, is an ideologue and for that reason alone is dangerous as most of her platform is untested and honestly impossible to implement due to massive funding fallout. Some of the ideology should be tested and looked into but the costs are ridiculous and very blanketed. ...and then there is a Hazelnut Mocha Frappuccino, which by all accounts holds well to a platform that never lets me down. In the end, does my vote count? Does all the hype and hoopla for the election of POTUS seriously amount to anything? Does your choice actually reflect you overall? Or are you on the coffee/beer/taco bandwagon instead? 6 Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Or are you on the coffee/beer/taco bandwagon instead? Not so much the coffee, but the Beer and Tacos ticket is something I think represents me very well!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 (edited) I'd vote for Trump. I can't await to see him doing FA. That face of Merkel when she sees the news of him being elected <3 And the media who has to worship him after all that smear campaign American should probably introduce a Proportional Representation system instead of a Majority one? It promotes that voters don't think their voices are wasted. Majority system is even more a 4-year dictatorship But i'm sitting here, drinking Beer anyway. Whatever. At least Trump doesn't tell Merkel "She did a good job" (Obama). Damn Lackey. Edited September 22, 2016 by Odin 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalmor Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 I liked Austin Peterson more than Gary 'What is Aleppo' Johnson. I'm going to be voting for Trump on November 8th. Hillary Clinton just doesn't have the health or moral integrity to be in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Living in the United States has become almost a saturation of massive social and political dilemmas which barely reflect the rest of the world, yet we seem to be the focus of much of the attention, not rightly so. In the course of the last century there has been an increase in division between the political parties and the ideologies behind each party has increased the gorge which separates the two major parties and the independents. Sure. Today we see a rift in America. We see a division which several people have analyzed and have come to the conclusion that it is the other party's fault for all the problems caused in the United States. We have a horrible foreign policy. He have a horrible economic platform. We have a horrible education system. We have a horrible court system. We have a horrible prison system. We have a horrible healthcare system. We pretend that fixing the deficit is actually a cure to the debt but it only decreases how much we spend for that quarter. We lie to ourselves every time we justify voting for the lesser of two evils in every election. Is every issue we have always honestly the other Party's fault for such a horrible and deplorable state we are in right now? It's not a novel thing in American history. "Horrible" is an opinion. Debt is the new international currency. We have a choice in this election. We can vote for Hillary Clinton. We can vote for Donald Trump. We can vote for Gary Johnson. We can vote for Jill Stein. We also have the option to grab a cup of coffee instead. Because right now looking at my options for who best represents me, I think a Hazelnut Mocha Frappuccino sounds about right. The reason I am contemplating this is everyone running honestly sucks, and seriously sucks bad. Hillary is, no matter how much people deny it, a crooked life-long politician who has done nothing, not anyone, not helped a single minority, except profit off of others and feels it is her time to sit in the chair of POTUS because she deserves it, as every rich self serving white Democrat married to a narcissistic megalomaniac sheister feels. Donald Trump is Donald Trump. Gary Johnson, though I am probably closer to the Libertarian ideology than most others, is in fact not that great of a representative of the Libertarian Party nor is he promoting the platform- he did not balance the budget in New Mexico, but increased it- supports funding Planned Parenthood- supports Imminent Domain laws and believes people who refuse services to people for religious reasons should be punished by the law. Jill Stein, who I seriously love the ideology of, is an ideologue and for that reason alone is dangerous as most of her platform is untested and honestly to implement due to massive funding fallout. Some of the ideology should be tested and looked into but the costs are ridiculous and very blanketed. All of these candidates are suppose to suck. The two-party system is designed to produce two candidates (and let's be real here, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson don't have a chance in seven hells) who win by getting the most support from the broad spectrum of American politics. With a very singular and specific ideology, all of the candidates suck and will always suck. That's not new, nor will it ever be. In the end, does my vote count? Does all the hype and hoopla for the election of POTUS seriously amount to anything? Does your choice actually reflect you overall? Or are you on the coffee/beer/taco bandwagon instead? Only if you live in Ohio or Florida. Yeah, it kind of does, lot can change in four years. Probably not, but that's for the better. Taco Tuesdays. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trump Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Hillary is a murderer and should be treated like a murderer and tried for treason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 You have no real choice. You are given the illusion of choice since that is less costly than the truth. This shouldn't be a surprise. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 You have no real choice. You are given the illusion of choice since that is less costly than the truth. This shouldn't be a surprise. This is only mostly true. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 This is only mostly true. Umm. Are we arguing about the definition of real choice? Or democracy with limited options is less costly than unabashed autocracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 You are arguing that the band within which the choices are to narrow to constitute a areal choice. I agree that the band of choice offered is narrow (thank god) but choice does exist within the spectrum. For example, in your field, on candidate is arguing for dissolving or severely limiting the USA's participation as the hub of the international trading system. I assume because America will be doing things very very greatly, or in other words we will have a bigly absolute advantage everywhere, so comparative advantage will not be an issue. That is one choice. The other choice is more of the same (what we are doing now). I agree that is not a real choice with multiple alternatives of significant scope. But it is a real enough choice to differentiate. You can also vote for a third party or stay at home on your couch eating pizza and playing vidya. That isn't a real choice either. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 You are arguing that the band within which the choices are to narrow to constitute a areal choice. I agree that the band of choice offered is narrow (thank god) but choice does exist within the spectrum. For example, in your field, on candidate is arguing for dissolving or severely limiting the USA's participation as the hub of the international trading system. I assume because America will be doing things very very greatly, or in other words we will have a bigly absolute advantage everywhere, so comparative advantage will not be an issue. That is one choice. The other choice is more of the same (what we are doing now). I agree that is not a real choice with multiple alternatives of significant scope. But it is a real enough choice to differentiate. You can also vote for a third party or stay at home on your couch eating pizza and playing vidya. That isn't a real choice either. No, I said he has no real choice because the chance of his vote being pivotal is negligible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Oh, that. It is mass behavior and mass numbers that have choices. Its not the tipping point vote but group behavior. If he excludes himself from the group that decides than his decision power falls from negligible to zero (or less than zero relative to other groups). Example, if every single 18 yr old in college voted this year than the value of their issues would increase. As it is old retired people vote and have a logically commiserate % of power. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Oh, that. It is mass behavior and mass numbers that have choices. Its not the tipping point vote but group behavior. If he excludes himself from the group that decides than his decision power falls from negligible to zero (or less than zero relative to other groups). Example, if every single 18 yr old in college voted this year than the value of their issues would increase. As it is old retired people vote and have a logically commiserate % of power. True. But when the individual observes that his actions have very little chance of influencing what actually happens, disinterest usually follows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 yeah, you would need to explain shit in like high school Dely is in charge of that. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Richardson Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Oh boy, the misinformation here. Quote ☾☆ And Dio said unto him, "I trust you. Share my word." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Split the country in two. The candidates this year represent spheres of the political spectrum that are completely at odds with eachother, and there is not a single 'moderate' candidate that appeals to 'moderate' citizens. To me, it would make more sense to have two seperate countries - one led by democrats and one led by republicans. Not only would this be the science experiment of the Millenia, it would make both parties and their supporters somewhat happier. I know this would never happen because people would just see this as the resurgence of the confederacy and that's inherently bad, but it would still be quite interesting to see nontheless. Democrats would be happy within their own country, and republicans would be happy in theirs. Unfortunately the presidency is a 'winner takes all' scenario, instead of a parliamentary 'house and seats' type thing - which to me is more representative of the countries demographics, even though it tends to stagnate, but that's a topic for another time. We are beginning to see a more extreme disparity between the left and right now, with the emergence of the ever growing alt-right and the increase in the PC crowd. Just a suggestion. But yeah, as it stands there will be some sort of insurgency because either: republicans call out Hilary Clinton for rigging the election and begin a militia, OR, democrats will begin mass protests and riots due to trump winning, and that would cause huge civil unrest. In the past, this hasn't happened except for Lincoln, but that was after he tried making slavery illegal, but I'd put my money on it happening sometime soon. It's a shame to see it happen like this, honestly. I would say you are completely incorrect in that. The Democrat country would immediately fracture as the "far left" such as Bernard's acolytes would immediately paint the right wing (the current so called moderates) as just being the Republicans in disguise. The Republican country would also fracture as the Alt-Right decries the establishment Conservatives as sellouts who have weakened America. I'd wager in fact that splitting the country in two such as in your scenario would in fact lead to the opposite of what you think it would. Currently those two groups I mentioned above have to maintain an alliance of sorts with their respective mainstream group. If the country is split in two and there no longer is a reason for an alliance then they will begin to tear each other apart. As for your prediction on what'll happen depending on the result. If Clinton wins then call outs will happen but any sort of militia mattering is very unlikely. If Trump wins then the riots will happen very likely (as they have been under Obama constantly) which will be Trump's first test and golden opportunity as crushing said riots and bringing an end to the likes of BLM's thuggery will win him 8 years. People tend to like those who bring law and order. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted September 24, 2016 Author Share Posted September 24, 2016 Oh boy, the misinformation here. Please elaborate. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 Yin and yang, right? At the end of the day, the far left and the alt right are minorities (although growing) in their respective political sphere, and a country like America tries to find a middle ground between far left and far right, that's why the presidency of the past has generally been fairly moderate. It would be the same scenario in the 'new' Americas, there would have to be some sort of compromise with the extremists, which makes the two states more disparate from eachother, in contrast with the current system where establishment democrats and republicans are just bureaucrats. The extreme groups will have more of a presence, definitely, but at the end of the day, establishment republicans and democrats still vastly outweigh the number of far left and far right people. The militia? I'd say there's definitely going to be some sort of outcry. (Tangent) It's very apparent that Clinton doesn't have a 'real' following like trump does. She is simply "the lesser of two evils", as I've seen many times on this site. Anyway, Clinton winning will spark some controversy, maybe even enough for people to take advantage of the full extent of the 2nd. If trump gets elected (and that's still a big if), the riots will increase dramatically in size, especially in areas where an utter hatred of trump has taken place - i.e, New Mexico, New York, San Francisco etc. How he manages to subside them is completely out of my realm of imagination without using authoritarian methods. I suppose an anarchist reaction demands an authoritarian reaction, though. Isaacs third law and all. You've got 2 sides now shall we say and you for your states have cut them off from each other. The Democrats for example would in this new state become the right wing, not the "moderates", they'd simply be the right wing. There is still a moderate position yes but it's been moved to the left. My point was that giving half to one and the other half to the other would solve nothing when it comes to division. The resulting two states would still be fractured if not more so as what you call minorities now would quickly gain more prominence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Richardson Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 Don't have much time to debunk everything but OP starts by being a contrarian and not much else and then several posts dive into sophomoric analyzations of the American electorate Quote ☾☆ And Dio said unto him, "I trust you. Share my word." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 HR, the explanation of this thread is, mostly, an age thing and plus a rando/wako from England. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trump Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 Don't have much time to debunk everything but OP starts by being a contrarian and not much else and then several posts dive into sophomoric analyzations of the American electorate Pretty much. Trump is a good man and will make America great again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Richardson Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 HR, the explanation of this thread is, mostly, an age thing and plus a rando/wako from England. There needs to be a warning, it's gonna give someone a penguin bowling aneurysm . Quote ☾☆ And Dio said unto him, "I trust you. Share my word." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 There needs to be a warning, it's gonna give someone a penguin bowling aneurysm . I wouldn't be to hard on them. When I was 16 I thought "fixing" the electoral college was somehow a big deal. We all go through phases as our brains mature. Roz is a Brit and a bloviating tryhard who finds the BNP way too left wing for his taste. I doubt he will grow out of it but folks like him tend to move into their own unique orbit. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Richardson Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 c'est la vie Quote ☾☆ And Dio said unto him, "I trust you. Share my word." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azxoVRTwlNg 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.