(July 28, 2016 at 1:18 am)Tiberius Wrote: That is the most unbelievably stupid thing I've ever read about voting. You are an idiot.

How so?

If one votes for "A" and "B" wins, then by all logical standards that is a wasted vote.

I think 15% in pre-election polls get you into the debates. 5% in the actual election gets you federal election funding.

(July 28, 2016 at 1:22 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 1:18 am)Tiberius Wrote: That is the most unbelievably stupid thing I've ever read about voting. You are an idiot.

How so?

If one votes for "A" and "B" wins, then by all logical standards that is a wasted vote.

Perhaps you aren't quite aware of what elections are for. They aren't a competition where you go into a voting booth and try to guess who will win.

You vote for who you *want* to win, not who you think will win. If your candidate doesn't win, it doesn't mean your vote was wasted, it means not enough people agreed with you.

If Trump won the election, would you say that all Clinton voters wasted their vote and should have voted Trump? No. That would be ridiculous.

Maybe you should stop lecturing people about politics when you apparently know fuck all about it.

(July 28, 2016 at 1:22 am)Tiberius Wrote: I think 15% in pre-election polls get you into the debates. 5% in the actual election gets you federal election funding.

Johnson has a bigger chance getting into the pre-election debates he is ahead of Jill in that area.

(July 28, 2016 at 12:28 am)dyresand Wrote: I wouldn't vote trump either to me they are both equally bags of shit. One being less of a hawkish on war one being really hawkish on war. 
Either or i don't like any of them i wouldn't want Hillary to unite the democratic and republican party she already ran so far right she might as
well run as a republican at this point. To put it this way when the race started i was truly going to vote Hillary then after awhile seeing all
of this bullshit she has done it made me question why should i toss my vote her way.

You keep saying this dyre, but I fear you really are just repeating what's been parroted in the blogs you read. In what ways is Hillary too far right? What is your understanding of the TPP, that it is the most important election issue for you?

Pretty much any Democrat would be better than Hilary. There are more things I agree with Libertarians on than I do with Hilary - in particular their wanting to end foreign interventions. It's actually really hard to know what Hilary actually stands for because she's so good at being a chameleon. She wants to be president for herself and nobody else. It's all for her ego.

I'm subscribed to Ron Paul's YouTube page, and he seems like reasonable fellow between >50% of the time (but nowhere near 100% because I can't agree with anyone on everything). At least Rand doesn't proudly wear flip-flops - in fact he recently proposed a bill to end the military draft which I liked the sound of.

(July 28, 2016 at 12:15 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Would a republican have legalized gay marriage?

Yes, actually, certain Republicans have no problems with homosexuals. The Pauls (Rand and Ron) have served as Republicans, but being Libertarians they have no problems with homosexuals. Funny how you go around throwing insults and yet it is you who are the ignorant and stupid one.

(July 28, 2016 at 12:15 am)Maelstrom Wrote: What does bother me is that you are basically stating that you will not vote for either party.

Why is this a problem? You don't own anybody's vote.

(July 28, 2016 at 12:15 am)Maelstrom Wrote: What you all need to understand is that from a very logical standpoint, at this time we are not capable of electing a third party member.

So? If third parties grow then they can affect change in the bigger parties. In fact, California's new election rules mean that it is advisable to appeal to third party voters. I'll let the below video explain it better than I can:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEu1RICoEc4

(July 28, 2016 at 12:15 am)Maelstrom Wrote: A third party vote is a waste, a vote that could have been used for the lesser of the two evils.

You seem to be repeating yourself here. Plus, I've shown you how it's not necessarily a waste.

(July 28, 2016 at 12:15 am)Maelstrom Wrote: If Trump wins, you can bet that I am going to blame all of you idiots who were too fucking dumb to understand how politics works.

You certainly don't win over people by insulting them. That's what people who masturbate to Hilary Clinton need to understand. If Hilary loses she only has herself to blame.

Hilary is a piece of poo. She's a terrible candidate and because she's so arrogant she things this election will be easy for her. I'm not going to tell you should shouldn't masturbate to her - I'm not in the business of calling people I disagree with idiots or stupid after all. However, what I will reiterate is how the Clinton Cronies think they are all so smart and then turns out they are the ignorant ones.

(July 28, 2016 at 12:15 am)Maelstrom Wrote: After all, it has been consistently shown that democrats are for the people. They can never give us everything we want, but when they do, it is epic. I thought I was going to die without seeing gay marriage legalized, after all.

We must not be living on the same timeline. I'll let Jill Stein of the Green Party explain why the Democrats (at a national level at least) are not for the people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Tz7o5gZwE

(July 28, 2016 at 1:53 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 12:28 am)dyresand Wrote: I wouldn't vote trump either to me they are both equally bags of shit. One being less of a hawkish on war one being really hawkish on war. 
Either or i don't like any of them i wouldn't want Hillary to unite the democratic and republican party she already ran so far right she might as
well run as a republican at this point. To put it this way when the race started i was truly going to vote Hillary then after awhile seeing all
of this bullshit she has done it made me question why should i toss my vote her way.

You keep saying this dyre, but I fear you really are just repeating what's been parroted in the blogs you read. In what ways is Hillary too far right? What is your understanding of the TPP, that it is the most important election issue for you?

My issue is i would like a candidate that is a progressive and works for the people not against them someone who would say okay this enough we 
have failed with our foreign policies when it comes to the middle east. We need a president who can say enough is enough and just pull out of the middle east
and start using diplomacy that's what really needs to happen rather than sending troops to war. A total reduction of our military presences world wide would be 
another great start as much money as we spend we can start using it back here on infrastructure, education, etc. Money can be thrown at RND for alternative fuels
and even green energy that would open up so many new job opportunities once we reduce our need and drive for oil it's better for us in the long run. The rich pay 
a higher much more fair tax even universal healthcare. Then we have to tackle the big issue of militarized police that is yet another big issue i really don't like the idea
that police officers get APC's and automatic rifles as hand me downs from the military it's just a bad idea waiting to happen. But this is what i would do but i will list Hillary. 

My biggest grip is why does Hillary need bush donors and why she even says to them i value your values outright more than trump...
if that doesn't scream running to the right i don't know what to say. She even picked a moderate republican as her running mate... 
i really can't say much other than if she truly was running left and wanted to win she would have had Bernie as her VP if she did id vote for her in a heart beat. 
It's what she says that makes her run to the right it's her actions up to this point that really point it out i mean really giving the finger to Bernie voters 
she needs independents like a fish needs water. 

(July 28, 2016 at 2:56 am)dyresand Wrote:

(July 28, 2016 at 1:53 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: You keep saying this dyre, but I fear you really are just repeating what's been parroted in the blogs you read. In what ways is Hillary too far right? What is your understanding of the TPP, that it is the most important election issue for you?

My issue is i would like a candidate that is a progressive and works for the people not against them someone who would say okay this enough we 
have failed with our foreign policies when it comes to the middle east. We need a president who can say enough is enough and just pull out of the middle east
and start using diplomacy that's what really needs to happen rather than sending troops to war.

This will not happen, no matter what president is in office. Even Bernie. He would be wrong to do it, even if he were to try. We are involved in the Middle East. We have committed to allies in the region.

Faulting Hillary or---any politician for that matter---all of the problems in the Middle East is dumb. Islamic extremism is the problem, and mistakes have been made in trying to deal with it.

(July 28, 2016 at 2:56 am)dyresand Wrote: A total reduction of our military presences world wide would be 
another great start as much money as we spend we can start using it back here on infrastructure, education, etc. Money can be thrown at RND for alternative fuels
and even green energy that would open up so many new job opportunities once we reduce our need and drive for oil it's better for us in the long run. The rich pay 
a higher much more fair tax even universal healthcare. Then we have to tackle the big issue of militarized police that is yet another big issue i really don't like the idea
that police officers get APC's and automatic rifles as hand me downs from the military it's just a bad idea waiting to happen.

I would agree with you that our military presence should be scaled back, but we're not going to become isolationists overnight. You are not going to get purposeful military reduction out of either party. The military industrial complex is a major industry, and no one is going to be responsible for the loss of military/defense jobs.

On the demilitarization of the police force, I'll quote from the campaign website:

Quote:Promoting oversight and accountability in use of controlled equipment, including by limiting the transfer of military equipment to local law enforcement from the federal government, eliminating the one-year use requirement, and requiring transparency from agencies that purchase equipment using federal funds.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/cr...ce-reform/

(July 28, 2016 at 2:56 am)dyresand Wrote: But this is what i would do but i will list Hillary. 

My biggest grip is why does Hillary need bush donors and why she even says to them i value your values outright more than trump...
if that doesn't scream running to the right i don't know what to say. She even picked a moderate republican as her running mate... 

She doesn't need Bush donors, she wants them. She's not leaning to the right by targeting the one of the most important families in Texas and the GOP. Their endorsement would be incredibly important in attracting moderate conservative voters. She's trying to win an election, not satisfy Bernie Bros. You seem to be an idealogue, dyre. It doesn't matter if something is practical or makes perfect sense, you want it to mean exactly the opposite of what it means, because it fits your narrative. The Bush's are against Donald Trump; they will not endorse or donate to him as of yet. Getting their endorsement would be a HUGE coup for Hillary.

Kaine is a moderate Democrat, not a republican. Words have meaning, dyre. Again, you seem to just make up your own narrative.

(July 28, 2016 at 2:56 am)dyresand Wrote: i really can't say much other than if she truly was running left and wanted to win she would have had Bernie as her VP if she did id vote for her in a heart beat. 
It's what she says that makes her run to the right it's her actions up to this point that really point it out i mean really giving the finger to Bernie voters 
she needs independents like a fish needs water. 

I don't know what you are talking about, and I think neither do you. In what way has she given the finger to Bernie voters?

(July 28, 2016 at 2:56 am)dyresand Wrote: chapters of the TPP that are interesting 19, 20, 21,23,24,26,29

You want to tell me what in those chapters has you up in arms? I'm afraid that might mean you would have to actually read them. I don't think, for a second, that you have.

(July 28, 2016 at 5:01 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I don't know what you are talking about, and I think neither do you. In what way has she given the finger to Bernie voters?

Off the top of my head:

1) Chose a conservative Democrat as a running mate rather than an actually progressive one.

2) Hired DWS to her campaign after she resigned from the DNC for rigging the primaries in favor of Clinton.

Though it's #2 that I think most people are pissed about. If Clinton had completely disavowed DWS and her actions, said the DNC did all of it without her knowledge, then maybe some Sanders supporters would have voted for her. At the moment, the act of hiring DWS looks like some final piece in Clinton's master plan to steal the election.

Still convinced that Clinton is against the TPP?

https://twitter.com/RaniaKhalek/status/7...4090652677

"The DNC has also informed Sanders delegates that they will have their credentials taken away for holding up anti-TPP signage as well"