ilovefuzz.com

jrfox92 wrote:that makes you the problem with America.

Probably. I think one of the big problems, though, is a failure to practice empathy and make good rhetorical choices when engaging political allies as well as enemies. As in: name-calling seems to me to be a big problem that doesn't advance any agenda in particular, nor does 'winning' an argument.

But it is convincing to some (see: rabid supporters of political parties).

Invisible Man wrote:I think an international perspective is pretty critical...no idea what you'll vote, Rusty, nor am I fishing, but that sounds jingoistic. Trump is an American Exceptionalist par excellence, which is his platform for ignoring outside perspectives. And we could use someone with less at stake pumping the brakes on this...situation, y'know?

International perspective can be valuable. Not suggesting otherwise. But far-sighted fear mongering is as useful as myopic views of molehills. Telling me, everyone to vote a certain way through fear & negative campaigning? No thanks, entertaining such a perspective is a waste of time. No jingoism. I'm neither globalist nor isolationist. Currently unsure how I'll vote, if I'll vote, but my state is one of the most reliably blue in the union. Every district of the densely populated county in which I reside could all vote Trump and he still wouldn't turn the state. But perspectives, foreign or domestic, insistent I need to support such and such, when we've never met...will always cause friction. It's begging for pushback from ornery folks who will do what want with or without your approval.
My position is you've gotta be the bigger person to break a cycle and make a difference. Channel the angst into productive, creative outlets & maybe just worry about what you can actually control, like being a good neighbor & spreading joy on the micro scale. The concept of paying it forward applies and is something to build upon.

jrfox92 wrote:So...
We've all decided we're not gonna, oh y'know, try to get a third party elected?

I am still not sure how I feel about the idea because I still feel both "3rd parties" are going about it in the opposite way than they should. What Bernie got moving is "hopefully" more about the idea of going about it in the right way, getting the footing together, the people, more than electing one big talking head as president with NO ACTUAL SUPPORT within the government. To get a bunch of "3rd" parties to exist you need city and state governmental support otherwise everyone will turn on your person. I've been watching for a long time and the one thing I like is this is the first, THE FIRST time that people on the "left" are actually getting that all their issues can be put into one movement, one mindset vs everyone for their pet cause which GETS YOU NOWHERE. If you want change you need more than one person and more than just a few protests that the media won't report on anyway [meaning it didn't exist], also this is the first time where I am seeing a good amount of dissipating of the hippy failure culture that has held things back with cause-head culture. I just "hope" this round the people that are involved actually stick with it and don't give us another WTO/2004 war protest/99% and taking it past the fucking 60's be-in mindset.

Mudfuzz wrote:I am still not sure how I feel about the idea because I still feel both "3rd parties" are going about it in the opposite way than they should.

That's true, but just imagine how the election might look if instead of your standard majority/minority/non-existent split it was actually somewhere close to even across the board (that is, the election leads to battles in congress).
Granted, it'd be an absolute nightmare that would probably last for months, but I think a good healthy dose of "what the fuck is happening to our political system" is just what we need to get our shit together.

It's a little bit of a pipe dream, but it's a pipe dream that would be possible if people actually bothered with being passionate about their politics rather than the false passion that we're about to see for the next three months.

jrfox92 wrote:

Mudfuzz wrote:I am still not sure how I feel about the idea because I still feel both "3rd parties" are going about it in the opposite way than they should.

That's true, but just imagine how the election might look if instead of your standard majority/minority/non-existent split it was actually somewhere close to even across the board (that is, the election leads to battles in congress).
Granted, it'd be an absolute nightmare that would probably last for months, but I think a good healthy dose of "what the fuck is happening to our political system" is just what we need to get our shit together.

It's a little bit of a pipe dream, but it's a pipe dream that would be possible if people actually bothered with being passionate about their politics rather than the false passion that we're about to see for the next three months.

It's a badass dream none the less

Im just scared this will fuck up my entire family if Trump wins. My family on my fiancee's side are all illegal immigrants from mexico, we live with them and rent the house together. If Trump started deporting people, me, my son and my soon to be wife would be screwed.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid and realistically that wont happen, but I dont trust my country to not let something stupid like that happen.

I feel powerless.

Is there a way to start the process of becoming legal just in case? I have no clue on this, so my question is an honest one.

I really don't see how he could deport that many people. It seems to me like he says it just to appeal to the white trash crowd.

BitchPudding wrote:Im just scared this will fuck up my entire family if Trump wins. My family on my fiancee's side are all illegal immigrants from mexico, we live with them and rent the house together. If Trump started deporting people, me, my son and my soon to be wife would be screwed.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid and realistically that wont happen, but I dont trust my country to not let something stupid like that happen.

I feel powerless.

I feel you, my parents are quite literally only alive because of medicine they were only able to get through the ACA. I'm truly scared of that being taken away.

In a very brief response to jrfox: you're playing essentially a classic game wherein game theory applies. Is there actually any hope in getting a third party elected? Realistically.

Believe me, I don't have any faith in the two party preferred system either and I would like to see it smashed to pieces, but as someone whose entire country has spent it's last two elections desperately trying to get away from its two main parties and failing, my advice is, for this election anyway, do not waste your vote.
As IMan said, you're in damage control mode now. Control the damage.

Definitely keep the pipe seem alive as I think in years to come it will be made a reality.

PV: it does matter. We're talking finite degrees and about issues that are not big picture ones such as those you mentioned, but it does matter. From little things, big shitstorms brew.
And again, damage control.

Rustywire: ok, I'll fuck off telling you what to do with your vote when you get off your arse and do something about it yourself instead of pissing and moaning that it wasn't your problem to begin with. Don't take that personally, but it's that sort of apathy en masse that got you guys where you are today.
Coupled with that whole "don't tell me not to do stupid things, I'm American!" Shit that you guys (again, en masse) are great at espousing, like its a valid argument to do anything. At all. Ever.
Sorry, but I have a fairly firm belief that the climate of apathy and stupidity (as DoS mentioned) has bought your country to the point where somebody from outside has to grab you like a crackhead relative and tell you to get your shit together, you aren't welcome at Christmas anymore. And put some fucking pants on!

End old man rant.

As an amendment/addendum to my last post: PV, bitch pudding and Inconcl are your finite degrees of difference.

Mudfuzz wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:see: all my comments about why the electoral college is a good thing.

See: that you have yet to beat any of my points and I am still waiting for a actually thoughtful solution other than #peopleRdumb..

That's not actually true, though. Representative government is a necessity past a given size, and a continent is certainly beyond those confines. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't better than a pure democracy.

jrfox92 wrote:So...
We've all decided we're not gonna, oh y'know, try to get a third party elected?

I mean.
Zealotry for your shitty party is great and all, but when a massive portion of the country agrees that neither Hillary nor Trump should be sitting in the Oval office, why aren't you out trying to get people to vote for the other two options that are out there?

Media has been categorically ignoring both Stein and Johnson at the same fucking time they're bitching/fear mongering about Hillary and/or Trump.
So quit talking about this bullshit of, "Oh, we can't have that compulsive liar/American-Eagle-Military-Cop-Hero killer in office" or, "We can't have that racist/misogynist/oompa loopa/russian double agent/body controlled by a wig because he'll destroy the entire universe and kill/imprison all blacks/hispanics/immigrants/vaping-cross fitting-vegans" while also saying, "there's no point in supporting a third party because I'm lazy and it won't work anyway" because doing that makes you the problem with America.

No. Voting for third party for president is stupid. Voting third party for Senate members, House representatives, state legislators, etc.(i.e. the people who actually make a difference in government, are not.) You don't vote in a Green Party president and then hope that this encourages Green Party Senators -- that's legitimately ass backwards. However, voting in Independents, socialists, libertarians, whatever, into representative government is how you make a difference, not a throwaway vote for Jill Stein in November-- who spouts a lot of bullshit (and I say this as someone who is safely categorized as fairly left wing on most things). Neither Johnson nor Stein have a realistic shot at being elected in November, and there isn't time to build the sort of infrastructure that either would need to make a serious, concerted effort at running. This is, unfortunately, fact. Has fuck all to do with laziness, and much more to do with the fact that no one on the "hurr durr I love me some third parties" wagon ever fucking does anything to advance their cause in between Presidential elections. Don't be a fucking nitwit, because that would make you "The Problem With America" (underline and bold as you see fit).

Gary Johnson supports the gold standard. Every economist I've ever met will tell you that as much as economists will argue about everything, they all agree that a fiat currency is far superior. The only people who support a return to the gold standard are the people who don't understand how the economy works, and that is a disqualifying position for me when it comes to being the president.

D.o.S. wrote: The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't better than a pure democracy.

It isn't that I don't like it, it's I see it as broken, I see most of our voting process as broken.

D.o.S. wrote:and that is a disqualifying position for me when it comes to being the president.

So, Hillary and Trump are comparably qualified to be president?

Is there really anyone in this election that's qualified to be president, then?
I mean, if supporting the gold standard disqualifies someone from being president in your mind, then what the fuck wouldn't disqualify you from being president?

Shit, man.
If being ignorant on something like the massively complex system that is the US economy and not fully understanding the merits of a fiat currency over a commodity-based currency means you shouldn't hold office, then I have absolutely no idea who should be POTUS and ever could be POTUS.

Sorry, that statement was just so off the wall that I'm completely beside myself (with confusion).

jrfox92 wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:and that is a disqualifying position for me when it comes to being the president.

So, Hillary and Trump are comparably qualified to be president?

Is there really anyone in this election that's qualified to be president, then?
I mean, if supporting the gold standard disqualifies someone from being president in your mind, then what the fuck wouldn't disqualify you from being president?

Shit, man.
If being ignorant on something like the massively complex system that is the US economy and not fully understanding the merits of a fiat currency over a commodity-based currency means you shouldn't hold office, then I have absolutely no idea who should be POTUS and ever could be POTUS.

Sorry, that statement was just so off the wall that I'm completely beside myself (with confusion).

??? ??? A disqualifying position does not mean that everyone holding the opposite (or any other position), is qualified. He certainly wasn't saying that.

Granted, I was begging the question there, but the logical conclusion of his argument is either, "no one is really qualified thus there's no reason to vote" or, "at least one person here is qualified and Johnson isn't because of a single belief."

His argument was against third party candidates.
One because they are viewed as a non-starter candidate.
One because he supports the gold standard.

Thus, the conclusion (which, granted, is partially based in fallacy, I'm aware) is that we should vote for one of the two main candidates because they haven't yet been vocal about their ignorance of economic policy.

Edit:Phones don't like the word fallacy, apparently.