Gaga hypocrisy on Election and Clinton?

[deeman 189]

3 minutes ago, kupo said:

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.

 

nonsense.  the lesser evilists themselves are responsible for clinton trump. if you are a clinton supporter trump is a direct result of electing bill clinton in 92. he brought nafta which is one of the main things trump is opposing.  you have next to zero influence over the result. coin flipping has much better odds of a winning streak than lesser evilism. in all the history of the democratic party they have never had more than 2 consecutive president. people say swing state it is basic brainwashing swings swing back and forth. the lesser evilist helps both sides.

 

[DeanWinchester 41,390]

The logic of some people here 

[PaperIz 7,354]

1 hour ago, kupo said:

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.

 

George Washington, the founder said we shouldn't have political parties so I beg to differ that it was designed that way. Corporations are in control of the parties and the 2 parties fight and claw to keep us trapped in a rigged system that doesn't help the people. It helps the parties and the elite. This election reaffirms that and hits it home. We're trapped unless we fight against it not chicken out and vote for a lesser evil that's still evil

[Cocaine Heart 4,768]

1 hour ago, John Slayne said:

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

What is more privileged than you and the people on this site blatantly ignoring all the people that Hillary will bomb. 

Everyone running here as though Hillary is some sort of angel. She has destroyed countries, funded terrorists, supported invasions ...

[Melech 9,900]

4 minutes ago, Cocaine Heart said:

What is more privileged than you and the people on this site blatantly ignoring all the people that Hillary will bomb. 

Everyone running here as though Hillary is some sort of angel. She has destroyed countries, funded terrorists, supported invasions ...

None of the three party voters would be any better than hillary

 

[deeman 189]

 

[JbGaga 2,261]

I think shes hyporicitcal on many things. Publicly Supporting the Clintons and there attacks on women both by Bill and Hillary is probably number one on that list tho.

[John Slayne 4,154]

39 minutes ago, Cocaine Heart said:

What is more privileged than you and the people on this site blatantly ignoring all the people that Hillary will bomb. 

Everyone running here as though Hillary is some sort of angel. She has destroyed countries, funded terrorists, supported invasions ...

And you think third party candidates or Lord Tangerine are any better?   If anything, they are 100 times worse on other policies like economy, education, health, and environment. And let's not forget that iconic "what's an Aleppo" 

 

[Nemo 4,414]

I used to support Assange, back around the time when Gaga visited him. Nowadays, I don't. It's not hypocrisy (a charge that's thrown around here way, way too often, just in general); it's called changing one's mind, based on new information.

[malazam 15,710]

That was in 2012 

[Squidward T 2,472]

6 hours ago, John Slayne said:

And you think third party candidates or Lord Tangerine are any better?   If anything, they are 100 times worse on other policies like economy, education, health, and environment. And let's not forget that iconic "what's an Aleppo" 

 

So I take it you want the government to take care of you 

[Squidward T 2,472]

5 hours ago, Nemo said:

I used to support Assange, back around the time when Gaga visited him. Nowadays, I don't. It's not hypocrisy (a charge that's thrown around here way, way too often. just in general); it's called changing one's mind, based on new information.

Hes

'He's exposing the corruption in politics, something the Americans should be aware of. 

[The Child 18,997]

But who isn't hypocrite? Everyone is. We all are hypocrites, we all have our flaws, we all make mistakes, stop throwing stones at Gaga, she's a grown ass woman, let her do her thing.

[Benji 20,113]

I don't think she's hypocritical, at least not for that reason.

I would say she's hypocritical for not backing Jill Stein as she appears more aligned with Gaga's political beliefs but she's in the "anything to stop Trump" mindset.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

12 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.

Capital letters please. I really wanted to read this comment. I gave up half way through.