Who Ya Voting For?

[Requiem]

The Green Party is always a great protest vote. That's what we do in Canada.

The sad thing, Stein probably would have gotten a shitload more attention if the media wasn't so corrupt and conspiring for Hillary to win.

Not to mention the whole rigging the nomination thing. People are barely behind Hillary in terms of wanting to vote for her, at least when it comes to Bernie supporters. It's a massive shit show on her part. Any normal timeline where we finally get a female president would have been something cool and interesting, but Hillary is just a bad person. I'm all for a female president, but not Hillary. The fact that she's probably going to win just makes me sick of the way America does everything even more than I already was.

Trump sucks and shouldn't be president, but God damn if Hillary isn't also just as fucking bad.

"Wow, what a shitshow" is fucking right. That's the only opinion a sane American can have really.

 

[Lumpy]

Probably has somethin' to do with how this election and the coverage thereof has saturated the media and overstayed its welcome by doing so. New evidence coming up just makes it more clear that both candidates are corrupt, awful people who don't deserve to be in positions of power.

The only correct opinion at this point is "wow, what a shitshow".

Not at all. People can discuss what aspects of the "shitshow" they believe or don't believe. Which aspects they care about or don't care about. Bullshit like that. Without discussion, a lot of people wouldn't even realize it's the shitshow you claim it is. Particularly with this case, since the media is complicit in the shitshow, and what is probably the most important revelations to come out during this election are being shared nearly through social media alone.

The problem is on both sides; you can't change somebody's opinion if they won't listen to why they're wrong.

You missed my point and it still stands. In fact, even more so.

Nice jobs on the likes though guys. Good way to show who just assumes their own moral and intellectual high ground here, despite the apparent feeling of being unable to convincingly argue in favour of it.

 

[Tirin]

Not at all. People can discuss what aspects of the "shitshow" they believe or don't believe. Which aspects they care about or don't care about. Bullshit like that. Without discussion, a lot of people wouldn't even realize it's the shitshow you claim it is. Particularly with this case, since the media is complicit in the shitshow, and what is probably the most important revelations to come out during this election are being shared nearly through social media alone.

I'm past the point of trying to convince anyone that one candidate (between Trump and Hillary) is better than the other; both are shamefully shitty. While certainly some things about both could be ignored or given the benefit of disbelief, they would still possess grievous personal and professional faults that should disqualify them from the position of president.

You missed my point and it still stands. In fact, even more so.

Well, of course your point stands. Since people judge for themselves whether or not you've proved their convictions wrong, people can also refuse to accept the arguments of just about anyone, ranging from randos like us who post hella bullshit to experts in a variety of fields with decades of data, knowledge, or experience. In fact, that's had a serious impact on this election.

Nice jobs on the likes though guys. Good way to show who just assumes their own moral and intellectual high ground here, despite the apparent feeling of being unable to convincingly argue in favour of it.

I don't feel as though I can't argue convincingly, but with regard to the American election I don't see a whole lot worth arguing over.

 

[Easy]

Trump sucks and shouldn't be president, but God damn if Hillary isn't also just as fucking bad.

The only way I can really see this statement working out, is if you're going for the "she's obviously way more competent in the field, (and, apparently, just about any given other field as well), so her sorta-questionable integrity is arguably just as dangerous as Trump's clearly-and-repeatedly demonstrated lack of thereof." That's a solid argument.

But not a strong one.

 

[Lumpy]

The only way I can really see this statement working out, is if you're going for the "she's obviously way more competent in the field, (and, apparently, just about any given other field as well), so her sorta-questionable integrity is arguably just as dangerous as Trump's clearly-and-repeatedly demonstrated lack of thereof." That's a solid argument.

But not a strong one.

Apparently you are now an enemy of everyone in this thread. What makes her integrity sorta-questionable and Trump's entirely lacking?

 

[Easy]

Apparently you are now an enemy of everyone in this thread. What makes her integrity sorta-questionable and Trump's entirely lacking?

Thorough investigation of her alleged criminal activity consistently fails to justify any ruling against her, according to preexisting legal standards, even when said investigation is overseen and administered by people whose political interests are directly aligned with, (and sometimes, even openly admitted as a primary consideration in the attempt at), doing so. And while she's obviously flip-flopped hard on a number of political positions over the years, her flip/flop : time ratio isn't really that much greater than most people's. (It's been decades.)

By contrast: Trump, about whom neither of those things can be said at all.

Well, they could be said. Technically. It'd just be incredibly untrue.

Kinda like a "the Earth's actually flat and the gub'mint faked the moon landings," sorta thing.

 

[Requiem]

I'm not saying she wouldn't be able to do the job. A number of presidential candidates have been capable of doing the job, as well as a number of actual presidents, but that doesn't mean they deserved the position.

I don't know the woman, can't say I have real reasoning beyond what I've said in the past and what we've seen of her during the last few elections, but I can say that I don't like the idea of her being president, just like I don't like the idea of Trump as president. Call it a hunch or what have you, but everything I've seen of her suggests she's not trying to become president because she wants to do any actual good. Surprise, a politician isn't only interested in doing the right thing, I know how that sounds. It's basic and obvious, but while in the past, your average politician was scummy and you could easily tell, with Hillary, it always feels like she's just right out of the way of anything that would actually confirm the bad feelings people have about her. That doesn't sit right with me. There's just something off about her and I get that as voters we should all use the evidence we have to make the decisions we're going to make in the voting booth, but what puts me against Hillary has more to do with what I don't see of her. She's just not right for the role and that's clear to me. I don't need a bleeding heart superhero to be president, but I also don't want some non-criminal/criminal who always manages to skate by when some sort of charge comes against her but then just happens to come out in her favor. Yeah, the system says she's not a criminal, but when has anyone in the last decade actually looked at the American government and law systems and thought, "Yeah, that always makes sure justice is served correctly"?

 

[Lumpy]

That really doesn't seem all that accurate, Easy. I mean, you are aware that the head of the FBI, who was heading the investigation into Clinton's private email server, said that if she had been anybody else, she ought to suffer punitive actions. The legal precedent set for her actions would be charges of criminal negligence and a complete loss of security clearance. Despite her defense being that she was too incompetent to know what she was doing, she made false exculpatory statements that, as legal precedent would show, is evidence that she knew exactly what she was doing. Not to mention she withheld evidence requested by subpoena and then attempted to destroy evidence by deleting her emails with a program called BleachBit, and using a hammer to smash several devices.

I don't know much about Trump's case. What felony was it that he convicted of again?

As for the flipflopping thing, is that one of your main measures of integrity?

 

[Requiem]

Apologies for the double post, if this ends up being one. I'm on my phone currently.

Nice jobs on the likes though guys. Good way to show who just assumes their own moral and intellectual high ground here, despite the apparent feeling of being unable to convincingly argue in favour of it.

Also don't do this. I'm not sure where all of this is coming from, the combativeness towards no one in particular, just the group in general.

Personally, I've been arguing what I've argued since last year. I wanted Bernie to win, he had no chance, I knew that, but here we are. America has two candidates I've never wanted and now I'm being asked, not by you in particular but just as an American citizen, to choose between two steaming piles of shit and then somehow explain why I chose one over the other when I have two other halfway decent meals to choose from instead, ones that aren't shit. Sure, those two meals, Stein and Johnson, might give me a stomach bug, but at least I won't get shit between my teeth.

What I don't like, and again I mean this in regards to the conversation being had everywhere in America, not just here on Mach in particular, is that no matter what I say against one candidate, I have to constantly and consistently say something negative about the other candidate. Hillary and Trump at this point, for me as an American citizen, are just melded together to make the worst, most terrifying couple if candidates we could have to deal with. No, of course it could be a thousand times worse, we could have a dictator killing people and forcing elections to go certain ways, I know that, but Trump and Hillary are just the results of a fucked up system run by people who don't have enough of a fuck to do anything about it. America just does not care anymore and we haven't in years. This becomes easier to see the older I get.

You're upset that people are reading and liking posts they agree with and yeah, that's right, they are, but I think I can speak for most people when I say that we're all just tired of hearing about this every single day and being asked to defend our positions or beliefs. Yes, that's life and there's some major shit going down and yeah, maybe this community isn't the one you thought it was, Lumpy, one that would debate things on end for the sake of it, for good conversation, but you've gotta keep in mind that people just get tired eventually.

I'll cut this post off now though. I don't want to come off preachy or write a damn novel. I don't want to be the one defending the "just leave us alone in our houses with our tvs and music players" argument, but after getting beaten over the head with discussion after discussion over those two shit snacks and no one wanting to even consider the other options, can you blame me for wanting to just not give a fuck anymore and tossing a like at someone saying something I can actually agree with for once?

Shit's fucked. In the past I've felt bad for not registering to vote and letting my vote matter, but this election, I don't feel bad at all. Either way, we're not getting anyone worth a damn. Not in the ways that matter to me at least.

 

[Lumpy]

Nothing combative about assuming people that disagree with you are snot nosed cunts that are impervious to reason and evidence. You have to admit Req, that is an incredibly annoying and shitty position to take on when coming into a political discussion. It has nothing to do with the "group", just this particularly shitty action some of it's members are pulling.

Don't try and distract with even more of the same "all I'm saying is they both suck" shit. That's not the post you liked. You liked the "everyone but me and the kool kids like brigade I'm absolutely going to summon are retarded" post. I have absolutely no problem with people disliking both candidates and I have no idea why anyone could possibly think otherwise.

 

[AndyM03]

Nice jobs on the likes though guys. Good way to show who just assumes their own moral and intellectual high ground here, despite the apparent feeling of being unable to convincingly argue in favour of it.

You argue quite aggressively and ironically make assumptions like this. While that's not the case for all your posts, this forum is not 100% political. I'm on this forum mostly for the social aspect. I have political opinions, and when my mates say something I agree with, i'm gonna like the post. I don't consider political debate a social thing to do and i've got other places in my life to discuss or deal with that, so I won't personally debate you on your nation's politics.

 

[Lumpy]

You argue quite aggressively and ironically make assumptions like this. While that's not the case for all your posts, this forum is not 100% political. I'm on this forum mostly for the social aspect. I have political opinions, and when my mates say something I agree with, i'm gonna like the post. I don't consider political debate a social thing to do and i've got other places in my life to discuss or deal with that, so I won't personally debate you on your nation's politics.

I apologize that you felt I was too aggressive. In the future, if we ever disagree, I'll be sure to just call you a snot nosed cunt instead of trying to articulate whats irking me. You know, as to not seem so aggressive.

 

[Requiem]

Honestly, I went back and looked at the posts you're talking about in terms of likes and nothing seems out of the ordinary to me.

Though if we're being real here, bringing up "likes" as any sort of legitimate argument is ridiculous. I know that I've made posts all throughout this election, both here and on various social media, as well as had plenty of conversations IRL about all of this stuff. I've defended my beliefs. Just because you aren't getting the discussion, debate, or dick waving that I'm assuming you hoped for doesn't make bringing up "likes" any sort of real argument.

And you missed my point if you're assuming I suggested you have a problem with people saying they dislike both candidates. My point was that I'm tired of having to defend my choice, not to you in particular, but just overall. Every time I say something against one candidate, I've got some person somewhere telling me that makes me for the other candidate. I'm just tired of this election and tired of having to say the same things over and over because someone else seems to think the conversation has to be had and if its not talked about right this second and you don't defend your opinions and beliefs then you're an asshole. I'm getting sick of it. You pointing out likes and suggesting that they're evidence of a kool kids like brigade or something like that is awful as well. You act like us Liking a post is going to bring some sort of posse around. You actually used the word "summon" as well. Literally everyone here on this site are people you and me have known for years now, literally years. In the past year alone, we've had practically no drama. This isn't the old forums where one bad posts would cause a shitstorm. There's no brigade of assholes waiting to pounce on you for saying something contrarian. We're all just tired, dude. At least some of us are. Hell, like Andy said, some of us aren't politically inclined. Some members of this forum like posts because, surprise, they agree with them, but don't want to post saying so.

But anyways, this is just weird to me. I don't see why people, namely you Lumpy, are being so shitty for practically no reason. Again, we're a small, tight knit community of people that have known one another for almost ten years now. Some of us have damn near grown up along side each other, insofar as we were able to that is. We don't need to resort to assuming there's groups of us who are gonna bully anyone. Just take the combativeness down, man, or whatever discussion you hoped to create is just gonna die out before you ever even get to have it.

 

[AndyM03]

I apologize that you felt I was too aggressive. In the future, if we ever disagree, I'll be sure to just call you a snot nosed cunt instead of trying to articulate whats irking me. You know, as to not seem so aggressive.

I don't believe Firedemon was referring to you when he said this. There are always people who fall on all sides of the political spectrum for all the wrong reasons. Although Fire was clearly in angst against the right, his comment is perfectly applicable against some of us on the left as well.
As Tirin said

The problem is on both sides; you can't change somebody's opinion if they won't listen to why they're wrong.

I think you've perceived a slight when there is none.

 

[Requiem]

I don't believe Firedemon was referring to you when he said this. There are always people who fall on all sides of the political spectrum for all the wrong reasons. Although Fire was clearly in angst against the right, his comment is perfectly applicable against some of us on the left as well.

I think you've perceived a slight when there is none.

Is that what happened? Oh my god, lol.

The whole snot nosed cunt thing only got brought into the situation when Ibix used those terms himself. And even then, it only got to the point it did after a few subsequent posts in regards to the same thought.

If this is what happened then I can see the confusion. I can almost definitely assure you, Lumpy, that FD didn't mean to insinuate you're a snot nosed cunt. I mean, we'd have to ask him to explain that himself of course, but there's no need for us biting at our own back over a simple misunderstanding.

 

[Lumpy]

It wouldn't have mattered if it was a slight against me. It would have bothered me regardless.

Here's an idea. Before I continue going into it, how about any of you actually try DEFENDING the concept of calling anyone and everyone that disagrees with you snot-nosed cunts that are impervious to reason and evidence and I'll apologize for my aggression.

 

[Firedemon]

Lumpy, no one here is calling you or anyone else a snot-nosed cunt. I'm sorry you took it that way, this is really not what is going on here. I was complaining about the tendencies of snot-nosed cunts, not labeling anyone as a snot-nosed cunt. Because at the end of the day, everyone hates snot-nosed cunts.

Also, there was no intended angst against the Right. I meant that as a general statement. Pragmatic realism is often a justification for "I'm right, you're wrong, go away with your facts while I circlejerk with my convictions*", when a pragmatic realist would actually hold few (if any) convictions* and instead follow the facts. There are plenty of people on the Left who would also falsely** label themselves pragmatic realists, though I see why you might think that was meant as an attack on the Right, since the Right has historically been proud of their alleged** pragmatism (at least, in my experience?). However, most people on the Right don't use this as some kind of bullshit shield against facts, which is the behavior I am attributing to snot-nosed cunts and am not intending to attribute to the Right or anyone in particular.

In conclusion, I'm not being antagonistic I swear.

*When I say "convictions" I mean convictions relating to achieving various goals. At the end of the day, the people of both sides have the same goals, to build a better life for themselves and the next generation. You may phrase your goal differently, but really it boils down to this in my opinion, maybe with some variance in the scope. Despite this homogeneity in goals, people wildly disagree on how to achieve those goals. The convictions based around how to achieve those goals are generally incompatible with pragmatism in my opinion.
**Also, for the record here, neither side is really pragmatic in my opinion. Like I said, a true pragmatist would forgo convictions* and pursue facts and both sides have failed this.

 

[Firedemon]

Oh, okay, I see the issue here.

People who disagree with me are not snot-nosed cunts. No one is trying to say that people that disagree with them are in fact snot-nosed cunts.

 

[Requiem]

1. You're assuming aggression on the part of FD. 2. I'm not going to defend something I don't agree with, especially since we're both taking entirely different views of what FD meant in his post which seems to have caused this trouble. 3. Well shit, look at what FD wrote himself. Literally no one here holds the opinion that if people disagree with them they are snot nosed cunts. I never did, FD never did; the only other person who liked that particular post, Andy, never did either.

We're not going to try and defend some opinion you mistakenly believe us to hold because we "liked" a post you misinterpreted.

 

[Colonel Thunder]

So tempted to just like every post in this thread..