Gaga hypocrisy on Election and Clinton?

[deeman 189]

5 hours ago, A Gaga Lad said:

You do realize holding out a vote for Hillary means helping Trump win even if you dont vote for him?

thats crazy. its messed up so bad. you look at like someone says their faviourite colour is green and that is supposed to mean they really like red. just totally dumb. start thinking like that and you get totally messed up corruption like there has been. it is orwellian double think like war is peace and gmo is good for the environment,  blah blah all the rest of bs these people talk.

[PaperIz 7,354]

5 hours ago, A Gaga Lad said:

You do realize holding out a vote for Hillary means helping Trump win even if you dont vote for him?

That's a stupid way to look at it. And not democracy btw. That's why we're in the mess of of Hillary v Trump. If she can't win our votes because she's dishonest, that's on her. You can't hold the American people hostage with that crap.

6 hours ago, Luc said:

Wikileaks was a good thing back then. Nowadays it's just an excuse to elect a deplorable and push Assange's personal agenda and most importantly Russia's agenda. Donald would probably limit government transparency, commit many war crimes, make Guantanamo bigger, take people's privacy way less seriously, etc. so I don't understand why he would prefer Trump over Hillary. It's just his personal dislike for her, probably the droning comment or something.

That last part is damn terrifying though. You have someone like Hillary who is definitely sketchy and a warmonger saying someone needs to be killed by a drone? That's horrific. And just because he's showing us stuff that she did? You shouldn't be mad at him for telling us, you should be mad at her for doing the things wrong in the first place.

[Luc 4,776]

20 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

That's a stupid way to look at it. And not democracy btw. That's why we're in the mess of of Hillary v Trump. If she can't win our votes because she's dishonest, that's on her. You can't hold the American people hostage with that crap.

That last part is damn terrifying though. You have someone like Hillary who is definitely sketchy and a warmonger saying someone needs to be killed by a drone? That's horrific. And just because he's showing us stuff that she did? You shouldn't be mad at him for telling us, you should be mad at her for doing the things wrong in the first place.

It's not shocking. Yes, it's immoral. We just have to realise that any big world power (besides the EU, really) goes to great lengths to protect their geopolitical interests. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, the US all kill people in the most horrific way you can imagine to protect their own interests.

 

I'm pretty sure the Assange comment wasn't that serious though. Those officials have seen and heard about a lot of the most terrible things in the world, they've got a very thick skin and by then start seeing such things as things you can joke about.

[PaperIz 7,354]

2 minutes ago, Luc said:

It's not shocking. Yes, it's immoral. We just have to realise that any big world power (besides the EU, really) goes to great lengths to protect their geopolitical interests. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, the US all kill people in the most horrific way you can imagine to protect their own interests.

 

I'm pretty sure the Assange comment wasn't that serious though. Those officials have seen and heard about a lot of the most terrible things in the world, they've got a very thick skin and by then start seeing such things as things you can joke about.

That's a nice little excuse you're giving for her. Are all of Donald's evil comments also jokes that can be excused?  

[kupo 201]

2 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

That's a stupid way to look at it. And not democracy btw. That's why we're in the mess of of Hillary v Trump. If she can't win our votes because she's dishonest, that's on her. You can't hold the American people hostage with that crap.

 

It's not a stupid way to look at it. It's an honest, pragmatic, and unflinching way to look at it. 

We didn't make this system (long-dead individuals did), but it is the one we are currently beholden to, and the change to such a monolithic system is not going to happen overnight.

Trump or Hillary will win this election. Full stop. And no amount of theoretical, abstract moralizing or philosophizing will change that. So, choose not to vote on principle. Or vote third party on principle. Or vote third party on the hope that Johnson scrapes that 5% together to guarantee funding next time round. 

But understand that by the very mechanics of the system and the contours of this particular election, literally every decision made by every voter (and non-voter--not voting is an active choice!) will have a positive/negative consequence on Hillary's/Donald's chances for victory. You can't really avoid it or opt out of the moral quandary. Third party votes and abstention are still very much a part of the matrix of lesser-evilism.

So, by all means, vote how you want and what feels most right to you--that is your prerogative. But you don't need to call it "stupid" when somebody provides a perfectly realistic assessment of the way the American electoral system functions.

[PaperIz 7,354]

1 minute ago, kupo said:

It's not a stupid way to look at it. It's an honest, pragmatic, and unflinching way to look at it. 

We didn't make this system (long-dead individuals did), but it is the one we are currently beholden to, and the change to such a monolithic system is not going to happen overnight.

Trump or Hillary will win this election. Full stop. And no amount of theoretical, abstract moralizing or philosophizing will change that. So, choose not to vote on principle. Or vote third party on principle. Or vote third party on the hope that Johnson scrapes that 5% together to guarantee funding next time round. 

But understand that by the very mechanics of the system and the contours of this particular election, literally every decision made by every voter (and non-voter--not voting is an active choice!) will have a positive/negative consequence on Hillary's/Donald's chances for victory. You can't really avoid it or opt out of the moral quandary. Third party votes and abstention are still very much a part of the matrix of lesser-evilism.

So, by all means, vote how you want and what feels most right to you--that is your prerogative. But you don't need to call it "stupid" when somebody provides a perfectly realistic assessment of the way the American electoral system functions.

It is stupid though. Everyone is trying to force everyone to vote for one of these evil creatures and that's why we're in this mess. I will not vote for someone I don't believe in. I might as well not vote at all in that case. 

[kupo 201]

1 minute ago, PaperIz said:

It is stupid though. Everyone is trying to force everyone to vote for one of these evil creatures and that's why we're in this mess. I will not vote for someone I don't believe in. I might as well not vote at all in that case. 

I don't necessarily disagree that the way the electoral system functions is stupid--but that's different from the original statement that I was taking issue with (which is when you told A Gaga Lad that his argument that a vote for anybody but Clinton is a boon for Trump was "a stupid way to look at it.")

Lad's interpretation is dead-on, maddening though that reality may be.

[Luc 4,776]

13 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

That's a nice little excuse you're giving for her. Are all of Donald's evil comments also jokes that can be excused?  

Now that I think of it, my excuse does indeed sound a bit like the 'lockerroom talk' excuse  

 

It's inappropriate and immoral, but I highly doubt that she actually had anything close to that in her mind. With Trump you know that it might have been half joke, half reality, whereas with Clinton you can be sure that she was mostly joking.

[PaperIz 7,354]

9 minutes ago, Luc said:

Now that I think of it, my excuse does indeed sound a bit like the 'lockerroom talk' excuse  

 

It's inappropriate and immoral, but I highly doubt that she actually had anything close to that in her mind. With Trump you know that it might have been half joke, half reality, whereas with Clinton you can be sure that she was mostly joking.

I actually don't know if she is joking since the body count of people who have challenged her is really high and very suspicious. She's just as scary.

 

[deeman 189]

25 minutes ago, kupo said:

So, by all means, vote how you want and what feels most right to you--that is your prerogative. But you don't need to call it "stupid" when somebody provides a perfectly realistic assessment of the way the American electoral system functions.

just coz millions of stupid people go along with it doesn't mean it is designed that way. it just means peoples belief in lesser evilism has led to lesser evilism

 

31 minutes ago, kupo said:

You can't really avoid it or opt out of the moral quandary. Third party votes and abstention are still very much a part of the matrix of lesser-evilism.

Sure you can opt out. its got nothing to do with you if other people are prepared to elect corrupt politicians and that means a good candidate can't win that is their fault and it is stupid to buy into the corruption and totally wrong to be trying to convince people to buy into it. Just think there is young people and these crooks are trying to get them to give their vote over too supporting corruption because other people are messed up. they are trying to corrupt these young peoples mind into lesser evilism. you have trump vs clinton for no other reason than people were already born into the dem/republican belief system. no sense in becoming another tool of corruption and worse still screwing with young peoples heads to get them to sell out the future and their own children to this bs lesser evilism.

[deeman 189]

 

 

[kupo 201]

38 minutes ago, deeman said:

just coz millions of stupid people go along with it doesn't mean it is designed that way. it just means peoples belief in lesser evilism has led to lesser evilism

 

Sure you can opt out. its got nothing to do with you if other people are prepared to elect corrupt politicians and that means a good candidate can't win that is their fault and it is stupid to buy into the corruption and totally wrong to be trying to convince people to buy into it. Just think there is young people and these crooks are trying to get them to give their vote over too supporting corruption because other people are messed up. they are trying to corrupt these young peoples mind into lesser evilism. you have trump vs clinton for no other reason than people were already born into the dem/republican belief system. no sense in becoming another tool of corruption and worse still screwing with young peoples heads to get them to sell out the future and their own children to this bs lesser evilism.

It *is* designed that way. The very systems in place, the rules by which they function, and the weight of history favor a two party system. American democracy is literally hard-wired for it.

And I think you missed the point of my post; saying you can opt out (which is what many abstainees and third-party voters claim--what you have just claimed) doesn't mean you've actually opted out. 

As I said, abstention and third-party votes still have very specific consequences in the paradigm of lesser-evilism. Which is to say, regardless of your intention with your vote or how you feel about it when you cast it, it has a functionality that is totally separate from that.

Only two candidates are viable because of the very machinery of American democracy. Again, this is not disputable. It is simply the way things are in the current moment. As such, regardless of whether or not you vote for either of those candidates, one of them is going to win, the other lose, and your decision not to vote or to vote for one of the non-viable third party candidates absolutely has the concrete effect of helping the eventual winner and hurting the eventual loser. This isn't up for debate; it's the hard reality of the way the electoral process works. Which is why I say, you haven't opted out--your decisions still exist and resonate within the either/or dynamic of the two party system. You have still absolutely exerted influence in handing the presidency to one of these two people. This is burden of all American citizens.

 

[TerrenceV2 2,001]

8 hours ago, Cocaine Heart said:

No. Not supporting Hillary doesn't mean supporting trump. There are other candidates.

I don't even remotely support trump. 

You have to be kidding me, are you delusional? Either Trump or Hillary will win. Be realistic please.

[TerrenceV2 2,001]

2 hours ago, deeman said:

thats crazy. its messed up so bad. you look at like someone says their faviourite colour is green and that is supposed to mean they really like red. just totally dumb. start thinking like that and you get totally messed up corruption like there has been. it is orwellian double think like war is peace and gmo is good for the environment,  blah blah all the rest of bs these people talk.

Totally dumb is to make a correlation between candidates and colors, idiot.

[John Slayne 4,154]

Third party voters and non-voters are the living embodiment of privilege.