2016 American Presidential Campaign

[Shimmer.Fade]

The shed in the woods thing was me gettin hype as fuck I don't even know where that's from I live in an apartment in a city near Boston (aka the Belly of the Beast)

Ouch, how long until you actually get to woods? Maybe that is why you seem bitter. I don't function well without nature myself.

 

[Phil.McKeer]

He might have to run off to the woods soon though, what with the government going around collecting everyone's firearms.

/sarcasm

 

[Just A Guy]

Thanks, Ali for taking the time to answer my question earlier -- I really would like to everyone to, even they decide not to post about it, to challenge themselves by writing it down -- I think that too many voters don't even know what they want, and are too happy to root for their team, or to reach for the shiniest object.

It might be even be uncomfortable for some...

So... to my next question: what makes an ideal voter?

I think an ideal voter understands their country's system of government, and vets the candidates' statements and promises against the laws and limitations at hand; are they proposing to do things they haven't been delegated the power to do? It helps to have some experience in party politics, maybe a stint as a county central committee member, worked on a campaign meeting with other citizens in their community, talking about the issues that are important to it. And most importantly, the ideal voter verifies the information he's researched (or being fed) and is wary of the cult of personality, and avoids the shiny objects so as to stay true to what they intended to do in the first place: elect their ideal official.

Until citizen-voters start to pay attention, and understand what is going on, they will be a part of the problem, and will be serving corruption and tyranny.

Well, I'm out... going to have some dinner with my wonderful girlfriend, and maybe watch Braveheart tonight. Peace, everyone.

 

[RedLeader]

So... to my next question: what makes an ideal voter?

Here's how I see it...

Let's say that instead of going into a voting booth and picking a candidate, you go into a booth and take an extensive political assessment test. And then your answers are computed and compared to a spectrum of candidates, not only the big two, and whomever you score closest to then will get your vote.

If you don't have enough confidence in your ability to end up with the same candidate you would have straight-up voted for, then you have no business voting and should stay home.

 

[ArCi]

[video=youtube_share;pP3syBu4ZDM]http://youtu.be/pP3syBu4ZDM[/video]

 

[GenericMind]

It's a Lounge thing.

I might have to investigate.

 

[Bardeaux]

You know why I'm proud? I lift weights, eat meat, I'm a good shot, I'm good at building shit, working with my hands, I don't drink much but I'll drink anyone under the table. If you took a hit off my bizarre cigarettes you'd end up in an institution.

You're cool as fuck, dude.

I too, am an omnivore.

I look at all these Sanders ralleys and I see the dregs with funny hair colors, weaklings, degenerates, etc.

Would you stand in front of the American United Steel Worker's Union and repeat this?

Fuck it, just one steel worker. Call him a degenerate weakling and post the results on youtube for our amusement, tough guy.

All these credentialist control freak leftists like to hold up their gender studies/sociology/erotic gay Cuban literature studies degrees like Moses carved them out of rock and claim to be of higher intelligence because they are able to parrot their indoctrination without needing to ever think independently.

Have you even been to university?

For years, my classes have not taught one what to think, but how to think for one's self. In political, ethics and sociological classes in particular, open debate among students was highly encouraged, even against the professor. This "brainwashing" going on at college campuses tend to take place at business schools. "Profit is holy and shall go unquestioned. Here is the dogma in which you will use to achieve the holy sacrament of surplus."

 

[superelephant]

Well shitty posts often get shitty replies, so...

The dude votes against almost every military action that comes up throughout his entire career and you want to bitch about one of the only ones he voted FOR? Talk about nitpicking, Jesus. Nevermind the fact that the air strikes actually worked and the government there disarmed shortly afterward, stopping full out escalating genocide.

If in 34 years of public service THAT is the issue you have with Bernie then I'd say you're really reaching.

Every republican proposed military action. He voted against the Iraq war, but voted in favor of authorizing funds for that war and the one in Afghanistan. Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure murdering civilians is not ever necessary.

Beyond pointing out his antiwar hypocrisy, I disagree with him on most things. I want to slap him in the face with a hardcover copy of David D. Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

I think an ideal voter understands their country's system of government, and vets the candidates' statements and promises against the laws and limitations at hand; are they proposing to do things they haven't been delegated the power to do? It helps to have some experience in party politics, maybe a stint as a county central committee member, worked on a campaign meeting with other citizens in their community, talking about the issues that are important to it. And most importantly, the ideal voter verifies the information he's researched (or being fed) and is wary of the cult of personality, and avoids the shiny objects so as to stay true to what they intended to do in the first place: elect their ideal official.

Until citizen-voters start to pay attention, and understand what is going on, they will be a part of the problem, and will be serving corruption and tyranny.

This is kind of why I wonder why you would support Cruz, because his connections with the financial industry (one of the biggest threats we face IMO) seem to go rather deep. I get the seeing things with your own eyes thing, but how deep did you really get? Sanders has literally done what he says for his whole life. I think such a person has a very high level of integrity. I would hope that someone with such integrity would uphold the constitution no matter their personal political stance.

The US (and world) is in desperate need of a swing back in the other direction in terms of wealth redistribution. Nothing is getting done anymore except fighting a frantic battle to not devolve. This is because the institutions that truly can do good with the finances they have are being squeezed out for those who generate profit. Real philosophers, scientists, and thinkers are being assaulted/exploited from all sides from people with things to gain. I've seen precious few of my colleagues who have a classical education allowing them to think somewhat outside the box.

Take the WHO for instance. Its budget is just a fraction of that of the Bill and Melinda Gates (Legalized Money Laundering) Foundation, yet what it is able to achieve with this limited budget is far greater than what many other, far richer, 'charities'/'foundations' are doing. The Bill and Melinda blah blah just made a study telling us that poor people problems can get better if we give them more money/support (~$5 per person, which I'm sure is a real accurate figure /s). What the fuck. You have to fucking research that? I would love to know how much they said that piece of shit cost, and how much it really cost.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

Every republican proposed military action. He voted against the Iraq war, but voted in favor of authorizing funds for that war and the one in Afghanistan. Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure murdering civilians is not ever necessary.

Your logic here is very flawed. If you recall to that time period once the decision to go to war had been made, it would have been tantamount to killing our own soldiers by not funding them. Do you honestly think he wanted his young constituents being sent out unprepared to a slaughter? If anything, this shows just how good of a president he would be.

 

[GenericMind]

Your logic here is very flawed. If you recall to that time period once the decision to go to war had been made, it would have been tantamount to killing our own soldiers by not funding them. Do you honestly think he wanted his young constituents being sent out unprepared to a slaughter? If anything, this shows just how good of a president he would be.

Exactly. You don't refuse to fund and equip your soldiers just to make a statement about your stance in the war.

 

[manboychef]

I read the question "What would make a good voter?"

In all honesty and fairness, most people are under qualified to even make ten second sound bites about candidates, let alone vote for them. It takes someone that is informed about the issues enough to take a stance, and then follow through when called to task. Most people are given so much misinformation by the MSM that they have no idea what is actually going on, nor have the time to investigate problems in depth. It starts with piss poor education, which is a boon for republican candidates, or badly directed activism which is a boon for establishment democrats. When people have to struggle constantly because their needs are not met, they have little time to actively participate in the political arena.

I support bernie sanders because I truly believe he can swing us away from the conservative ethos that is plaguing our economy, and ruining our healthcare. If those two things can at least be partially fixed most people will be in a better place to start asking questions about the representatives that are supposed to be acting in their best interest.

EDIT: There are quite a few more problems, but I chose the ones that are closest to my heart.

 

[Just A Guy]

You know why I'm proud? I lift weights, eat meat, I'm a good shot, I'm good at building shit, working with my hands, I don't drink much but I'll drink anyone under the table. If you took a hit off my bizarre cigarettes you'd end up in an institution.

I look at all these Sanders ralleys and I see the dregs with funny hair colors, weaklings, degenerates, etc.

All these credentialist control freak leftists like to hold up their gender studies/sociology/erotic gay Cuban literature studies degrees like Moses carved them out of rock and claim to be of higher intelligence because they are able to parrot their indoctrination without needing to ever think independently.

Look I'm bigger, stronger, smarter, and more cunning than y'all. European leftists on here I can't believe you'd rather let your women and children be raped daily than be called a bad name.

Call me racist, xenophobic, sexist, all those Frankfurt words. I'm all that shit, it has me laughing for hours in a shed in the woods. But no one in this thread has counter arguments for me, you just dismiss them. I don't care and I'm not convinced.

No lie, as I read your post, So Fresh So Clean was playing on the radio. I thought it was appropriate. lol

Here's how I see it...

Let's say that instead of going into a voting booth and picking a candidate, you go into a booth and take an extensive political assessment test. And then your answers are computed and compared to a spectrum of candidates, not only the big two, and whomever you score closest to then will get your vote.

If you don't have enough confidence in your ability to end up with the same candidate you would have straight-up voted for, then you have no business voting and should stay home.

I hear you, RL, and not only that, but I feel you, and my frustration and reasoning is described in my post about what makes a good POTUS: See

NSFW:

Everyone should ask themselves what they think makes a good POTUS.

For me, it's a strong, virtuous leader who follows the rules, and believes that a government that governs least governs best.

But there is the element of politics: where one can choose to be pragmatic and strategically play the election game, using their judgment to interpret the information and vote accordingly, or to be theoretically pure, and vote according to principle without regard to the election game.

Being a reasonable person, with a greater understanding of the status quo, I find it difficult to vote conscientiously knowing that most people won't, and that's the crux.

Ideally, I'd vote libertarian, and would expect most self-reliant individualistic citizens to vote for a candidate who espouses a classical-liberal platform, but because most people won't, and elections are won by votes through the filter of the electoral college (which has been infected by party corruption), I'm supporting Ted Cruz, who is the best candidate who I think has a decent chance. I see it as the difference between electing the lesser evil or voting for a candidate who is more than likely to lose, and I don't want to end up with a greater evil.

It's a shitty situation.

For the record, I've voted in every presidential election I've been permitted to, and voted conscientiously, as a matter of principle, without regard to the election game, and my chosen candidate has never won.

I'd love to know how the rest of you see things, and what you think makes a good POTUS?

This is kind of why I wonder why you would support Cruz, because his connections with the financial industry (one of the biggest threats we face IMO) seem to go rather deep. I get the seeing things with your own eyes thing, but how deep did you really get? Sanders has literally done what he says for his whole life. I think such a person has a very high level of integrity. I would hope that someone with such integrity would uphold the constitution no matter their personal political stance.

The US (and world) is in desperate need of a swing back in the other direction in terms of wealth redistribution. Nothing is getting done anymore except fighting a frantic battle to not devolve. This is because the institutions that truly can do good with the finances they have are being squeezed out for those who generate profit. Real philosophers, scientists, and thinkers are being assaulted/exploited from all sides from people with things to gain. I've seen precious few of my colleagues who have a classical education allowing them to think somewhat outside the box.

Take the WHO for instance. Its budget is just a fraction of that of the Bill and Melinda Gates (Legalized Money Laundering) Foundation, yet what it is able to achieve with this limited budget is far greater than what many other, far richer, 'charities'/'foundations' are doing. The Bill and Melinda blah blah just made a study telling us that poor people problems can get better if we give them more money/support (~$5 per person, which I'm sure is a real accurate figure /s). What the fuck. You have to fucking research that? I would love to know how much they said that piece of shit cost, and how much it really cost.

I agree that candidates' voting records testify for them, and Bernie Sanders definitely has a long one (since 1981, as a matter of fact). But so does Ted Cruz, albeit not nearly as long (not necessarily a bad thing!). However if you see my what makes a good POTUS post, you'll see that I desire a small-government advocate, which definitely keeps Senator Sanders off my list.

As far as Senator Cruz' connections to the financial industry -- I am wary. Yes, I am wary -- but he's practiced what he's preached, insofar as his short term as US Senator from Texas proves.

I read the question "What would make a good voter?"

In all honesty and fairness, most people are under qualified to even make ten second sound bites about candidates, let alone vote for them. It takes someone that is informed about the issues enough to take a stance, and then follow through when called to task. Most people are given so much misinformation by the MSM that they have no idea what is actually going on, nor have the time to investigate problems in depth. It starts with piss poor education, which is a boon for republican candidates, or badly directed activism which is a boon for establishment democrats. When people have to struggle constantly because their needs are not met, they have little time to actively participate in the political arena.

I support bernie sanders because I truly believe he can swing us away from the conservative ethos that is plaguing our economy, and ruining our healthcare. If those two things can at least be partially fixed most people will be in a better place to start asking questions about the representatives that are supposed to be acting in their best interest.

EDIT: There are quite a few more problems, but I chose the ones that are closest to my heart.

I just have to ask what conservatism is these days? Nobody can say, really, anymore. I believe that the free market, left mostly to itself, provides the fairest and best solution to our healthcare problem.

 

[Just A Guy]

Hey, it's Thomas Jefferson's 273rd birthday today, and to celebrate, I'm going to share this quote from George Washington.

From his farewell address, referring to political parties:

"However may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Truth.

 

[spacejunk]

I believe that the free market, left mostly to itself, provides the fairest and best solution to our healthcare problem

Really?
So - in practice, you prefer the way the health system operates in the USA, compared to somewhere like the UK and in much of Western Europe, or Australia (where health costs are subsidised in large part by governments, in an effort to make healthcare universally affordable or free altogether) to that in the states, where requiring medical assistance can often destroy people financially, if they can afford treatment at all.
I have close family in the USA, and the difference in our healthcare systems - and their outcomes - are so radically different.
Personally I'm very grateful for our healthcare system - not for any silly national rivalry reason, but just my experiences compared to my siblings and their children in America.

I've had my life saved and spent weeks in hospital, and was never billed. I was living in poverty at the time, so i have a pretty passionate - and personal - interest in maintaining healthcare models like ours.

I believe it is these fundamental differences in policy that people should look at before casting a vote - not the persona[lity] of the suit spruiking it

 

[GenericMind]

Ted Cruz said Americans don't have a right to masturbate. That's all I need to know about Ted Cruz.

 

[spacejunk]

What a load of wank.

 

[Just A Guy]

Really?
So - in practice, you prefer the way the health system operates in the USA, compared to somewhere like the UK and in much of Western Europe, or Australia (where health costs are subsidised in large part by governments, in an effort to make healthcare universally affordable or free altogether) to that in the states, where requiring medical assistance can often destroy people financially, if they can afford treatment at all.
I have close family in the USA, and the difference in our healthcare systems - and their outcomes - are so radically different.
Personally I'm very grateful for our healthcare system - not for any silly national rivalry reason, but just my experiences compared to my siblings and their children in America.

I've had my life saved and spent weeks in hospital, and was never billed. I was living in poverty at the time, so i have a pretty passionate - and personal - interest in maintaining healthcare models like ours.

I believe it is these fundamental differences in policy that people should look at before casting a vote - not the persona[lity] of the suit spruiking it

The health system in the USA is hardly free-market, left most to itself. That would have been more like what we had in the 60s, before Medicare and Medicaid -- while there still was limited government involvement, in the form of limited legislation which covered medical expenses for the elderly, and what is especially ironic, is that healthcare was way affordable back then, but now we have the "Affordable Care Act." Which is larger than PL 86-778 (the 60's subsidized healthcare), Medicaid, and Medicare, combined, and it's so frustratingly not affordable. So let's make it bigger? I think not.

Now I'm not that old, to have be around then, but not too far off, and I know that it's a lot more expensive for me to take care of my family than it was for my parents to take care of theirs, and they had four times as many children as I do.

Let me make it clear: Government subsidized healthcare, or single-payer healthcare, is using a jackhammer to crack open an egg. That's what I've learned.

I don't know a lot about any healthcare systems beyond the United States', even though I did spend 10 years in Asia.

I went bankrupt and had my house taken away from me in part because my ex-wife's medical bills were so huge...and the worst part is that I'm still paying them off. So we live different lives, different scenarios, and what's good for you isn't good for me, necessarily. Treating her endometriosis should not have cost me more than I make in 5 years as a skilled laborer.

Admittedly, I do enjoy the healthcare benefits I receive from the Department of Veteran Affairs, but that is a benefit promised and form of payment to me for the service I provided when I served in my country's armed forces.

Also, you do realize that when a government subsidizes something, the taxpayers are paying for it... collectively, perhaps (never fairly) ... and it's certainly not free.

Taxation is theft.

It pretty much takes accepting that last bit to understand my position, and to deny it to accept yours.

Peace, man!

 

[spacejunk]

I don't know a lot about any healthcare systems beyond the United States', even though I did spend 10 years in Asia

I think you'd be amazed at how big the difference is for average citizens in regard to healthcare over here.
I've had 3 years of weekly CBT sessions for drug addiction, as well as periodic check-ups with a doctor in the same place. They've helped me though an opiate withdrawal, an inpatient benzo detox, an outpatient benzo taper...and yeah, ~150-200 hours of therapy - all for absolutely free.
Didn't cost a cent, man.
Plus, i got sick last year - spent 3 weeks in hospital - emergency department, massive amounts of drugs....again - free.

It's not a perfect system - but it is radically different from my understanding of the US health system, which i know a bit about because my sister who lives there has a little girl with very serious health problems. And yes, as you say - it is not a purely free market system, but i believe it is much closer to our more government subsidised system.
Which, incidentally is hardly a socialist anomaly, in the Western world - and public health is something i've always been happy to contribute part of my income to.

Not intending to be competative about national approaches to health - i'm not the patriotic sort, but i was curious about what you meant by supporting a "free market health system, left mostly to itself".

 

[alasdairm]

I believe that the free market, left mostly to itself, provides the fairest and best solution to our healthcare problem.

i'm interested to read this. don't you think that the free-market has totally and utterly failed here? so why? because it's not been "left mostly to itself"?

when i lived in the u.k. i paid about the same amount of tax (proportionally) i pay here. when i needed a filling or had to see a doctor, i did just that - walked in, got help, walked out without (directly) paying a penny. people get care and it just works.

i didn't feel that my freedom was somehow threatened because the country i lived in thought that taking care of the health of the population was, you know, a good thing

alasdair