I will be voting for Bernie Sanders, one way or another. Depending on the situation, some of you are going to inevitably insist that I'm throwing my vote away, but I didn't expect a candidate like Sanders to get this close to the Whitehouse or this far along in a major party primary for probably a few more decades, and there's no telling when such a candidate will come around again. I would consider it throwing my vote away if I didn't vote for him.

(May 14, 2016 at 2:15 am)Nymphadora Wrote:

(May 14, 2016 at 1:50 am)Thena323 Wrote: No need to be hard on those choosing to stay home and pout.

Those are the ones we need to be the hardest on. They are not helping make changes in this country by being obstinate about not voting. They are the very first ones to complain that the country isn't being run the way "they like". Well perhaps it would have if they voted.

Yeah, yeah, I know...They're related to the "I'll move to CANADA!" set; A mainstay during every Presidential election season. And Distant cousins to the "Undecideds" you see feigning coyness all the way up to Big Event, even as they make their way into the voting booth.

They're just talking...They love to talk, is all!

(May 14, 2016 at 2:31 am)Sterben Wrote:

(May 14, 2016 at 1:12 am)The_Empress Wrote: ... and that does what, exactly?

        It's similar to letting someone do something stupid cause your tired of trying to help them. Let them make stupid choices, when they realize that have made a stupid mistake. That leaves them with only themselves to blame, and gives you power of the "I told you it was stupid to do that, now what have we learned?" Or a better example, for those of who remember "Hey Arnold" the episode that Arnold let everyone else do stupid things because he was always trying to help others. They messed things up so bad that a lot of them ran back to him for help and he would not lend a hand to help. That's the point I'm trying to make, I want that leverage to be able to hold over others. That way they will learn not to do as many stupid things as they were doing.

This is just about the most absurd thing I have ever heard of. Do you not realize that by "letting someone" do, as you say, something stupid, that in reality, it is you that is being stupid by allowing others that much control in having a say. Perhaps you (and others like you) need to get up off of your collectively ignorant asses and actually vote. Perhaps the changes that you seek out, might happen if you do. But no... you're not voting so that you can later on turn around and blame those in office for when things go wrong? Shame on you for being that dense. That isn't how it works. You have until November to educate yourself and make better choices. So does anyone else out there with your line of thinking. If you aren't voting, then how exactly, are YOU helping this country?

You want to be able to hold mistakes over others, yet you don't want to at least try to make a difference by voting.

(May 14, 2016 at 2:46 am)Thena323 Wrote:

(May 14, 2016 at 2:15 am)Nymphadora Wrote: Those are the ones we need to be the hardest on. They are not helping make changes in this country by being obstinate about not voting. They are the very first ones to complain that the country isn't being run the way "they like". Well perhaps it would have if they voted.

Yeah, yeah, I know...They're related to the "I'll move to CANADA!" set; A mainstay during every Presidential election season. And Distant cousins to the "Undecideds" you see feigning coyness all the way up to Big Event, even as they make their way into the voting booth.

They're just talking...They love to talk, is all!

I honestly believe sterben is really going to stay home and not vote. That's his right, of course, but it doesn't help anything.

Also, I don't know why so many of us are already resigned to Hillary vs Trump. If Bernie pulls ahead in pledged delegates (the difference shrank below 300 after WV), the supers will have to migrate or they're basically throwing away the general election come November. If he keeps it close and blows out California (which he could very well do, the way things have been going), then he will go into the convention with more pledged delegates than Hillary, which is a huge bargaining chip at the convention. If the super delegates nominate Hillary in spite of the popular vote, they can kiss the White House goodbye. As much as they hate Sanders, I can't imagine they would lose on purpose and hand the reigns to Trump for four years.


There's another thing. Hillary might actually get indicted soon. I know most of us think it won't happen (I still kind of don't), but word on Diagon Alley is that the FBI has something they're threatening to go public with if Obama/the attorney general don't pull that trigger soon. If that's true, it could cost her the nom even if they don't indict. The supers will not rally behind a publicly acknowledged criminal. If they do, they really have given up on winning just to spite some Millennials. What a strategy.

(May 14, 2016 at 2:00 am)Sterben Wrote: Well now, I shall answer your questions in the order you asked them.

Question one:Specifically what direction do you want this country to go?
A: I would like to see America become less of a corrupt country. A place were people can be become educated without become a financial slave to the system, and too be able to support themselves and their family's. A country to were one can retirement is obtainable by everyone, not just the higher classes and the elites. A country that rebelled and freed themselves from big banks and corrupt practices that lobbyist implement. My final closing statement on this question; our military and politicians, those who have committed and gave authorization to commit these war crimes through the decades. We has the citizens of the U.S.A need to hold all these people accountable for their actions. Now to the dismantling of the N.S.A, and reducing the power that C.I.A and the F.B.I has in the country. These groups have been out of control for a too long now, they need to be put back in check on what they can and can't do.

I'm 100% on board with all of this, except the CIA/NSA lunacy. I'm just smart enough to fight another day. Hillary isn't going to make any of this any better. Trump is for fucking sure going to make all of it worse. You better believe he wants a bigger military, more power for large corporations/banks, to bomb the Middle East indiscriminately, to make those with power more powerful. Donald Trump doesn't hang out with people like you or me. He hangs out with billionaires. He has their interests in mind. His presidency moves this country in the exact opposite direction than you want it to.

(May 14, 2016 at 2:00 am)Sterben Wrote: Question five: I would gamble on a possible Trump presidency on the basis of, "You let him move in, and he trashed the house." The power in that statement is worth it alone when things get bad. Has an added bonus, will be able to rid our selves him from our society when he convicted of crimes against humanity. I'm willing to stand a year or two of him being commander and chief to see that trial go down.
   The rest of your questions I'll get back to you tomorrow on, I do have work in the A.M and it's already late.

You aren't in the habit of thinking through what you say, or critically examining your positions. You are seriously saying that you would not do everything you could to prevent a person who you are convinced will commit crimes against humanity from gaining a position of power? To hell with the humans he's going to commit these atrocities against, you'll get your political revolution? Are you serious? That's some real sociopath shit right there? This is our country. We can take it back without burning the fucking thing down first. Dammit.

(May 14, 2016 at 2:00 am)Sterben Wrote: Question one:Specifically what direction do you want this country to go?
A: I would like to see America become less of a corrupt country. A place were people can be become educated without become a financial slave to the system, and too be able to support themselves and their family's.

Yes... I believe that secondary education should be free. However, the teachers we have in our public schools are already underpaid, have to use outdated material and many times pay for their own supplies in the classroom out of the already meager wages they are earning now.
So, I ask you the following:
1. Just where should the money to support free college education come from?
2. What sort of criteria needs to be met in order for a student to get this free education?
3. If a person comes from a well off family, should their family be forced to pay for that child's college education or should that child go to school for free?

What about students who want to get into fields that require graduate school? That's another four years of post secondary education that needs to be supported. Careers such as doctors and lawyers require this additional schooling. Those are just two fields requiring not only the student take ethics classes, but upon obtaining their respective licenses, they are now upheld to a higher standard than say someone who doesn't need licensure from their state in order to practice their chosen field of study. They also must renew their license on a regular basis and must keep some sort of malpractice insurance, which can run into the thousands of dollars per year, to maintain.

For my chosen field, I will need to take AND pass my State Boards in order to legally practice my profession. While it's not costing me upwards of half a million dollars, I will have to obtain a license from my state or I cannot practice my field of study. I will be held to the same level of standards as that of a doctor or nurse or any other professional that requires a license to practice in my state. Yes, my education is costing me $18,000, but because I am required to be licensed, should I still have to pay for my education? If not, then neither should someone studying to become a doctor or a lawyer.

(May 13, 2016 at 9:37 pm)Sterben Wrote: I'm very disappointed in the choices we have for our general election. Trump and Hillary are both equally horrible choices on a equal scale, he is a bigoted reality T.V star who wants to turn the U.S into a play. A play that is written, directed, and starred in by Trump. He is quite similar to Caligula, which scares the hell out of me. Hillary lacks what it takes cause of the fact she supports the N.S.A (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ng/386024/) as well, her donor list is quite scary as well, (https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/...cle=Career). That's a lot of money and that money always comes with some nasty strings attached to it. As far as third party candidates are concerned, they are quite weak and stand little to no chance against Trump's or Hillary's financial backing. I'm staying home in November, how about you?

When Trump destroys he world I'm blaming you.

Not but a few months ago the voting left was complaining, rightly...that there -was- no american left anymore.  Center right and trending.  Suddenly, because Trump exists.....Hillary becomes liberal hope incarnate, lol.  Hey, lets not just bash Hillary for this...because it's not as if Trump is any more of a repub than Hillary is a dem.  That's what the right is moaning about presently.  

No one, I repeat, no one who votes for either will be getting the product they were sold. Nor will anyone who votes -against- aeither candidate stop whatever it is they think theyre voting against.....because the dangers of a Trump presidency have been overinflated by the left as hilariously as the dangers of a Clinton presidency have been by the right.

Party loyalty seems to be the only thing this election will be run on. I hear alot of noise about convictions, of trying to stop the lesser of two evils..but we -did- have the chance to get the nominations to other candidates.......and yet here we are. We're not, now, choosing between the lesser of two evils...we're simply choosing between the two heads we propped up. It's like a little kid who gets angry because he picked cherry instead of blueberry and now he might actually have to eat the fucking cherry pop tart.

I'm not sure why anyone would get pilloried for practicing political conscientious objection. That people who don't vote x or y are helping to ruin america. That's -always- been the charge leveled at objectors...sure, but we're not. As Sterb pointed out and as famously explained by George Carlin...that shit is on yall. The folks who only claim to be voting -against- oe candidate or another with their vote for the opposition should understand abstaining perfectly well. My vote for neither is a vote against both. In the end it'll count about as much as anyone's vote for x to prevent y...but at least I'm not blowing smoke up my own ass about that, or about what x or y actually are, or what x or y can or will do.

(May 14, 2016 at 3:34 am)Nymphadora Wrote: So, I ask you the following:
1. Just where should the money to support free college education come from?
2. What sort of criteria needs to be met in order for a student to get this free education?
3. If a person comes from a well off family, should their family be forced to pay for that child's college education or should that child go to school for free?

Mind if I take a crack at this?

1. Even a minor military earmark, such as a new small arms round, soaks up many more times the cash required to fund our dept of ed to near bursting.    Reach into that.  Though honestly, the issue you mentioned earlier has to do as much with school admin soaking up funds and there being little left to trickle down to teachers as it does with our level of funding. You seen the wage disparity between dept. heads and educators recently? We could free up a significant amount directly from the dept of ed itself by making changes to how they allocate what funds we already provide. If all of that fails, for whatever reason, there's a thing called a tax.

2. The same requirements that need be met for elementary, middle, and highschool educations.

3. Free.  OFC it doesn't matter much, because people from well off families (and even people from poor families when they can swing it) -already- choose to forego the free education their child could recieve and send them to private school.  That won't change.

Whaddaya think?

(and put a candidate up in a general that stumps on that and I'd be right out of my little hideyhole to vote for them, so long as it doesn't come bundled with "kill the gays" or somesuch shit, lol ).