Dubstepforum.com

every single POTUS is going to order killings as commander in chief. this bullshit about Obama being the most brutal fucker to hold the office, or more bloodthirsty than Bush or Romney... it's a bunch of bollox and u know that . Just a talking point, a way of spinning the truth into a self-righteous condemnation for every available choice we have as citizens and hate on everyone else because you're so much more noble in your democratic actions.

give it a fucking rest.

@Phig - have to respectfully disagree. I bought into that 'lesser of two evils' mindset a while ago, but no longer. Pragmatism can be both long term and not implicitly mean you have to settle.

The problem is that we've collectively been browbeaten into this mess enough that yes, the two-party setup we have now has gone to great lengths to make sure that the dialog begins and ends with choice A or B; never mind the fact that this country has successfully supported more than 2 parties in the past, or that the Repubs and Dems were themselves third parties too not so long ago; never mind the fact that many local polities have significantly different political histories that are not composed exclusively of RepubliCrat dualism but have in fact elected socialists, libertarians, independents, greens, anti-masons, know-nothings, whigs, and others (in fact, one of the first parties of influence was the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson!)

If the electoral process is broken, that's a separate issue - and not a reason to vote for someone because you're afraid the process is too rigged and you don't think the small player stands a chance.

In the end, saying "you're throwing your vote away because ____ has no chance of losing" defeats the purpose of voting in a democracy, which is to pick the candidate whose views resemble yours most closely and who you think most accurately represents YOU, not a horse race to pick the one you think has the best chance of winning and with whom you're kind of OK but also kind of not OK because of things like... oh, say, picking the architect of asset forfeiture laws (the engine of profit in the drug wars) as your VP, denying more FOIA requests than Bush did in two terms, and generally re-affirming that the existing two parties are all about the interests of business in the end.

alphacat wrote: In the end, saying "you're throwing your vote away because ____ has no chance of losing" defeats the purpose of voting in a democracy, which is to pick the candidate whose views resemble yours most closely and who you think most accurately represents YOU, not a horse race to pick the one you think has the best chance of winning and with whom you're kind of OK but also kind of not OK because of things like... oh, say, picking the architect of asset forfeiture laws (the engine of profit in the drug wars) as your VP, denying more FOIA requests than Bush did in two terms, and generally re-affirming that the existing two parties are all about the interests of business in the end.

SCope13 wrote:So if Hitler and Stalin were running against each other, and the closest person to your beliefs was a third party candidate with no chance of winning, you're telling me you would vote for either Hitler or Stalin?

nice job with godwins law there, but yeah, i would. if either is a lesser of two evils, and the 3rd party candidate has no chance of winning, then voting for the lesser of two evils is the most rational choice

anyways i wont be voting anyways since i cant, so...

Important tho to distinguish between no chance of winning immediately and no chance of winning ever.

C. Sagan wrote:“It is all a matter of time scale. An event that would be unthinkable in a hundred years may be inevitable in a hundred million.”

yeah, thats the thing, i mean obviously it comes down to the individual. i get the whole idea of "vote for 3rd party long enough until it gets enough media attention, etc.," but i just think that's such a long shot in this political climate that it's too "risky."

yes, the US had 3rd parties in the past, but with the nature of the election system and modern politics, communication, and society in general, i just personally think it's even more difficult nowadays than it was in the past. and there's my belief that letting a romney presidency happen would do far more harm than the good that might possibly come about by choosing to vote 3rd party (in hopes of perhaps forcing gradual change over several decades).

Genevieve wrote:Thee's no 'pragmatism' in voting Dem or GOP. It's compliance. You want pragmatism? Regardless of your beliefs, massively vote for Johnson and support him to get a voice in the major presidential debate, or even give him a decent number of votes. Even if you aren't a libertarian (I don't either.. though he's still closer to me than the other candidates, and I'm sure closer to a lot of people here too, even SCope13) and he won't win, you would make a difference in raising awareness for third party candidates in the US. It's not a 'two party system', TECHNICALLY, Johnson is on the ballot in every state and capable of being voted in (though obviously he won't... I'm just saying, the two party system is an illusion).

It doesn't matter WHO becomes president, practically speaking, except for shit like foreign policy. So when it comes to Obama vs Romney, you don't really get a big difference (pro-UN, pro-imperialism, uconstitutional wars). So there's nothing 'pragmatic' about voting either Obama or Romney. But getting another option on the debate stage and giving a third candidate a boost in popularity does seem like a practical. And I woulda said the same if a Socialist or Green party candidate was doing as well as Johnson is.

LACE wrote:why can't you just let people vote for who they want to vote for

talking to you scope
talking to you genevieve

you may not agree with it but, isn't that what voting is about? if phigure wants to vote for a 3rd party candidate, let him do it on his own time. right now, he's voting for obama, why are you trying to convince him otherwise?

I haven't even been part of this thread in 2 weeks you pro-authoritarian jackass (oh, I know you will laugh it off, but I don't care). Get the fuck off it.

And it's not WHAT people vote for that annoys me (unlike you, bitching about Republicans and Romney.. while for the most part being pretty similar to them politically), but people being willing to give Obama a pass for a far more brutal foreign policy. I'm not criticizing a vote. I'm criticizing the hypocrisy in supporting bloodthirst because the team you're batting for is doing it now.

This. Fucking liberals. I swear, they just can't accept the fact that Obama is a piece of shit.


And yeah, Johnson would probably be my 2nd or 3rd choice behind Stein and maybe Alexander despite the fact that his economics are radically different than mine. FAR better than Obama or Romney.

And your guys' attitude towards voting 3rd party is really sad. No chance for change ever with bullshit attitudes like that.

I think everyone accepts Obama (or any politician) is a piece of shit

Obviously not.

Would assume ud vote for mittens if you wanted to accelerate the radical change that IS coming to America.

SCope13 wrote:Obviously not.

Do you even have the ability to vote?

This isn't even a jab; but if you can't vote...what do you actually know about it, or how people make their decisions when you haven't had to make it yourself?

mo respect wrote:

SCope13 wrote:Obviously not.

Do you even have the ability to vote?

Um, yes?


You pretending like they are zero Obama supporters out there is just fucking naive.

This. Fucking liberals. I swear, they just can't accept the fact that Obama is a piece of shit.

lol we got a tough guy here

aren;t you still in high school though?


either way, yeah there are a lot of obama fan boys, just like there are plenty of romney ones who know nothing. i'd say most people who actually vote, aren't those fanboys. the loudest group isn't always the most numerous.

mo respect wrote:aren;t you still in high school though?


either way, yeah there are a lot of obama fan boys, just like there are plenty of romney ones who know nothing. i'd say most people who actually vote, aren't those fanboys. the loudest group isn't always the most numerous.

Well yes, but I'm also 18.

Phigure wrote:

This. Fucking liberals. I swear, they just can't accept the fact that Obama is a piece of shit.

lol we got a tough guy here

Wasn't trying to be "tough". Just pointing out that most liberals (like my mom) seem incapable of admitting when Obama fucks up. About the only time they've done this was after the first debate.

hmmmmmm maybe because opinions are subjective and the "fuck ups" youre referring to arent actually "fuck ups" to everyone else, what a crazy idea

wrong thread derp

wat

Anyone got a link to the highlights of the last presidential debates? Need a good laugh.
I know someone has to have edited them down to the bare bones by now.

Thinking of writing in Vermin Supreme actually, do my part as a fake citizen
www.verminsupreme.com

Nation Tunes In To See Which Sociopath More Likable This Time - The Onion

“I’m very curious to see which one of these two clinically sociopathic individuals will present the most convincing and authentic approximation of an actual human conscience tonight,” said Cincinnati-area voter Miranda Harrick, 40, adding that both candidates, like all successful politicians, were undeniably skilled at such calculated artifice. “I think whoever is able to best manipulate me into thinking they experience normative emotional states such as empathy and regret will probably have my vote come November, so I’m excited to see what happens.”