The Republican Party

[Leisher]

So according to Abe you need to spend the next four years with your trap shut. That Abe Lincoln's a real asshole, huh? But you know better than him. I mean, what'd that guy ever do?

But please, continue to criticize the candidates. Continue to throw your two cents in on foreign and domestic policy. Continue to tell us how we're all sheep because we're voting. Continue to tell us exactly what we should be doing with said vote, and how we're idiots if we don't cast it in a way you approve, even though voting doesn't matter...

Continue to show us how to fix everything by never voting, never doing anything aside from whining on the forums.

I used to like Johnson, but it turns out he really does have no knowledge of foreign affairs to the point where he really isn't qualified to be President.

That bugged me, but he can be taught things. He'd have advisers. Let's be honest, the other two have staffs who give them daily briefing on everything. Hell, the one has been around politics forever so she certainly should have a good grip on things. Plus, I'm selfish, but I'd prefer to see good changes domestically rather than someone good at foreign policies, but who makes bad changes domestically.

The only other thing I can think of to do involves becoming one of those mass shooters you see in the news, and I have no inclination to do that.

You're just lazy.

[Malcolm]

So according to Abe you need to spend the next four years with your trap shut. That Abe Lincoln's a real asshole, huh? But you know better than him. I mean, what'd that guy ever do?

Besides suspend the entire Constitution? I picture the founding fathers all sitting around saying, "Yeah, but we all know this is meaningless tripe if shit gets real, Michael Bay-style, right?" Furthermore, I don't put that dude on the pedestal that most do. He was an average prez in terms of competence. His handling of the Union army was laughable.

But please, continue to criticize the candidates. Continue to throw your two cents in on foreign and domestic policy. Continue to tell us how we're all sheep because we're voting. Continue to tell us exactly what we should be doing with said vote, and how we're idiots if we don't cast it in a way you approve, even though voting doesn't matter...

Happily. Voting for any major party candidate for any office is something of which I do not approve. Voting for either of them doesn't matter. NOT voting for either does.

Continue to show us how to fix everything by never voting, never doing anything aside from whining on the forums.

You'll bitch about the system letting a candidate's alleged treason slide, but you'll sing the high praises of the same system for its bulletproof election process whereby only the best and brightest are allowed to lead? When I see a third party on the debate stage, I may have a momentarily lapse of excitement. But considering even that's rigged and no third party has anything close to the financial resources to challenge the other two, I'm not going to spend one microsecond giving a shit about the outcome of a craps game where both dice have a single dot on every fucking side. And every new fucking pair of dice is identical, seemingly to the simultaneous disgust and delight of the voting public. Give me any shred of a reason to care when I get the chance to throw. Until then, voting can suck my balls, and I'm going to throw my dice into someone's drink.

[Alhazad]

That bugged me, but he can be taught things. He'd have advisers.

You can't teach someone to take an interest.

[TPRJones]

Taking part in a rigged system is not an expression of duty. It's an expression of futility. I'd never "tell [someone] how [they]'re ... sheep because [they]'re voting", but likewise I think criticizing someone for electing not to vote in that rigged system is either wildly naive or blatantly hypocritical.

[TheCatt]

Leisher, you keep forgetting that Malcolm knows everything, and is better at all things than everyone.

OMG, Malcolm is Trump!

[Leisher]

Furthermore, I don't put that dude on the pedestal that most do.

I now present a list of people Malcolm doesn't put on a pedestal and believes do something better than he would:

End of list.

Voting for any major party candidate for any office is something of which I do not approve.

I now present a list of things Malcolm approves:
alcohol (but only brands he approves!)
drugs

End of list.

Voting for either of them doesn't matter. NOT voting for either does.

I agree with that first sentence, but not the second. Voting for a third party, even with no chance to win can have an effect IF more people were willing to do it. Maybe they don't take office, but maybe it gets attention. Maybe next time more people will do it, and more and more and more. The only thing I'm sure of is as long as most people stay home and reason third parties don't have a chance, then they're right.

You'll bitch about the system letting a candidate's alleged treason slide, but you'll sing the high praises of the same system for its bulletproof election process whereby only the best and brightest are allowed to lead?

Talk about apples and oranges...

See my comments above. I'd say that's far from high praise. I mean, here in the human world. Not where you come from where "I hope everyone dies of gonorrhea" is the equivalent of declaring a film should win the Academy Award.

(Important note: I wrote this before I saw Catt's comment. Ha!) By the way, Trump, you're openly criticizing and insulting everyone here not named TPR because they're going to vote. (And even TPR because he does vote.) Where's the logic behind that argument? How does that win the end game of your stance? I'm just curious.

[Leisher]

You can't teach someone to take an interest.

That's not even remotely true.

likewise I think criticizing someone for electing not to vote in that rigged system is either wildly naive or blatantly hypocritical.

Is the criticism being leveled against a person non-stop discussing who people should be voting for, how the system should work, and how the government should be run? If so, then I strongly disagree with you.

If it's someone who doesn't really care, I agree.

[GORDON]

Remember when Hillary went on the record and said Benghazi happened because of a youtube video, and later emails proved she had been lying?

But Trump has no class, so you know.

[TPRJones]

I guess we will strongly disagree, then. I would agree if you were to criticize someone for being apathetic. I do not agree that examining the situation and electing not to vote is worthy of criticism. In your case I would chalk it up to naivete rather than hypocrisy.

Voting for a third party, even with no chance to win can have an effect IF more people were willing to do it. Maybe they don't take office, but maybe it gets attention. Maybe next time more people will do it, and more and more and more. The only thing I'm sure of is as long as most people stay home and reason third parties don't have a chance, then they're right.

There is truth to this. The error is in the assumption that the third party candidates in question are worth voting for. To vote for a third party candidate that you would not support for actually taking the office is just as much of a fail as voting for a main party candidate that you do not really support. Put another way, if you are voting third-party just because you are voting against someone else rather than for that candidate, then you are no different from people doing the same thing in the two-party setup. This is because the end result of finally getting a third party in the game for real with a chance to win is only worth a damn if the candidates they are putting up are actually worth your vote. If they aren't you haven't changed a damn thing.

If someone looks at Trump and Clinton and Johnson and Stein and decides they cannot support any of those people then that is a perfectly valid choice. And I think it's a much better choice than voting for any of them only because you hate the other ones more.

[Alhazad]

You can't teach someone to take an interest.

That's not even remotely true.

How's it working out with Malcolm?

I agree with that first sentence, but not the second. Voting for a third party, even with no chance to win can have an effect IF more people were willing to do it. Maybe they don't take office, but maybe it gets attention. Maybe next time more people will do it, and more and more and more. The only thing I'm sure of is as long as most people stay home and reason third parties don't have a chance, then they're right.

Fun fact: several times in American history, a successful third party has supplanted one of the two main parties.

Read that again. The third party supplanted one of the main parties, as in, took its place. The inherently broken winner-take-all system didn't henceforth allow meaningful multi-party representation, free of spoiler effect and strategic voting. We still ended up here.

How long should you espouse the same flawed strategy and expect different results?

Remember when Hillary went on the record and said Benghazi happened because of a youtube video, and later emails proved she had been lying?

But Trump has no class, so you know.

Hillary being a piece of shit in no way elevates Trump above being a piece of shit.

[GORDON]

Remember when Hillary went on the record and said Benghazi happened because of a youtube video, and later emails proved she had been lying?

But Trump has no class, so you know.

Hillary being a piece of shit in no way elevates Trump above being a piece of shit.

I agree, but I don't think anyone needs to be "deplorable" because they'd prefer a moron over a liar.

[Alhazad]

Remember when Hillary went on the record and said Benghazi happened because of a youtube video, and later emails proved she had been lying?

But Trump has no class, so you know.

Hillary being a piece of shit in no way elevates Trump above being a piece of shit.

I agree, but I don't think anyone needs to be "deplorable" because they'd prefer a moron over a liar.

You mean "prefer a moron-liar over a terrifyingly competent arch-liar". But I concur with you.

[GORDON]

And he's also a classless bore, but my point still stands.

I hate liars almost as much as I hate thieves.

[TheCatt]

Remember when Hillary went on the record and said Benghazi happened because of a youtube video, and later emails proved she had been lying?

It's a lot grayer than you are painting it. Here's actual facts + timeline

[Leisher]

Remember when Hillary went on the record and said Benghazi happened because of a youtube video, and later emails proved she had been lying?

You silly fool, none of that matters! This man said he would grab a woman's vagina!!!!! Who cares if people DIED in Benghazi? A woman's vagina was verbally assaulted!!!

How's it working out with Malcolm?

Fantastic. He's not constantly posting here because he's disinterested...

Fun fact: several times in American history, a successful third party has supplanted one of the two main parties.

Read that again. The third party supplanted one of the main parties, as in, took its place. The inherently broken winner-take-all system didn't henceforth allow meaningful multi-party representation, free of spoiler effect and strategic voting. We still ended up here.

What years and which parties? I ask because there was once a time when Earth was uninhabitable, yet here we are. A bit extreme, yes, but "past results are not an indicator of future performance" and all that.

Hillary being a piece of shit in no way elevates Trump above being a piece of shit.

I couldn't agree more and vice versa.

I hate these two fuckwads more than anything, but here we are, and I'm fed up with the MSM and SJW asshats pretending one is better than the other.

[Troy]

I agree, but I don't think anyone needs to be "deplorable" because they'd prefer a moron over a liar.

I don't think it makes them deplorable either, but I read the comments on Breibart, and i'm pretty sure 90% of that crowd, is.

[Leisher]

I agree, but I don't think anyone needs to be "deplorable" because they'd prefer a moron over a liar.

I don't think it makes them deplorable either, but I read the comments on Breibart, and i'm pretty sure 90% of that crowd, is.

Now go to dailykos and balance out the stupid.

[Alhazad]

How's it working out with Malcolm?

Fantastic. He's not constantly posting here because he's disinterested...

I think that's exactly the reason he's constantly posting here.

What years and which parties? I ask because there was once a time when Earth was uninhabitable, yet here we are. A bit extreme, yes, but "past results are not an indicator of future performance" and all that.

Here you go, read up. American parties rise and fall as they fuck up or the people stop giving a shit about their issues, but the flawed system always dies back to two major players. New outgrowths either seize one of the two spotlights and become a new major party or die out. The system doesn't support any other arrangement for long.

[TPRJones]

Blue = Dem, Red = Repub. While there have been some changes early on, you can't deny that the vast majority has been us stuck in this two-party mess with the same two parties.

[GORDON]

I agree, but I don't think anyone needs to be "deplorable" because they'd prefer a moron over a liar.

I don't think it makes them deplorable either, but I read the comments on Breibart, and i'm pretty sure 90% of that crowd, is.

I believe that a good chunk of the "crazy" that speak up in favor of BOTH sides are...

I'm not sure what the word is.... astroturfers? People purposely trying to make one or the other side look bad by pretending to be a rabid supporter.

But I believe that to be true.