Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

sorry.  I didnt need to do that.  Ive wanted nothing more than to ignore this election for the last 6 months.  Now all we have to do is move it along.

No need to apologize it is just interesting.

It happened in a few elections where the victors claim themselves the victims and everything before that was them being picked on.

I don't know what this is called.

[pisskop]

In trump's case Id call it 'a planned move'.

But usually its narcissism.  And poor perspective.

[Shadowlord]

Personally, I believe that if you vote for a person, you're endorsing their platform, you're endorsing their views, you're endorsing every thing they've promised and said. After all, if they're not lying to you, they're going to try to accomplish everything they promised and practice what they preach. If you say "I voted for Wossname because of one reason and I'm ignoring the other stuff," well, the other stuff still exists. Ignoring something doesn't make it not exist.

I don't think I can fit that in 140 characters

[Sergarr]

this thread truly is the greatest thread that has ever existed

[Shadowlord]

this thread truly is the greatest thread that has ever existed

I disagree! *points at your sig*

[Silverthrone]

I still think Donald Duck should've been president...

He has a temper, but he is an honest, down-to-earth American, and is not afraid to roll up his sleaves and get to work, even though the hammock in the garden is where he would like to be most of all. Not to mention, he's served his nation in the navy. He'd have my full support.

He's been integral in hundreds of treasure finds, too boot, and how many presidents have defeated a cosmic horror? _{Admittadly, how many presidents have awoken them in the first place...} And yes, he did break the Holy Grail, but... Well... Hmm. Still. He'd make a fantastic president. Hail to the chief!

[Sergarr]

I still think Donald Duck should've been president...

He has a temper, but he is an honest, down-to-earth American, and is not afraid to roll up his sleaves and get to work, even though the hammock in the garden is where he would like to be most of all. Not to mention, he's served his nation in the navy. He'd have my full support.

He's been integral in hundreds of treasure finds, too boot, and how many presidents have defeated a cosmic horror? _{Admittadly, how many presidents have awoken them in the first place...} And yes, he did break the Holy Grail, but... Well... Hmm. Still. He'd make a fantastic president. Hail to the chief!

Unfortunately, there is confirmed video evidence of Donald Duck being a member of the NSDAP.

That would probably damage his election chances. Probably.

[Lord Shonus]

Personally, I believe that if you vote for a person, you're endorsing their platform, you're endorsing their views, you're endorsing every thing they've promised and said. After all, if they're not lying to you, they're going to try to accomplish everything they promised and practice what they preach. If you say "I voted for Wossname because of one reason and I'm ignoring the other stuff," well, the other stuff still exists. Ignoring something doesn't make it not exist.

In other words, you should never vote for anybody ever, because the only person with your exact views is you. There will never be a politician that doesn't support something that you oppose, so the only way to participate in a republic is to decide what issues are more important.

[Frumple]

While sorta' true, "oppose" isn't exactly a binary option. Difference between, "okay, I don't think that will work or may have some negative consequences" and "economic suicide with a side of minority ruination on the rocks". Lotta' stuff you can oppose and live with. Some stuff that's a more questionable proposition. Deciding something's more important doesn't mean you have to consider other things to be completely not.

[Tack]

What about Managed Democracy?
You take a survey about your beliefs, and then an algorithm decides which candidate most aligns with your values.

[Frumple]

I'm not sure I'm ready for the world's first survocracy, rule by survey makers.

[NJW2000]

Pirate party. Iirc it's a-happening.

[Lord Shonus]

While sorta' true, "oppose" isn't exactly a binary option. Difference between, "okay, I don't think that will work or may have some negative consequences" and "economic suicide with a side of minority ruination on the rocks". Lotta' stuff you can oppose and live with. Some stuff that's a more questionable proposition. Deciding something's more important doesn't mean you have to consider other things to be completely not.

Precisely. You can vote for somebody that supports something you hate because other things they support are more likely to matter, or because there's little chance of pushing through the thing you hate to begin with, or because you think undoing whatever damage they manage to do in that area will be worth the cost if it means you get something else done, or a dozen other reasons. My point is that "a vote for somebody is an unconditional backing of everything that that person believes in" is a fundamentally stupid concept.

[overseer05-15]

I voted SMOD.

https://twitter.com/smod2016?lang=en

The only candidate with a plan for everything.

[Shadowlord]

Shonus: You have a good argument. I still could never have voted for Trump, however, and had no problem voting for Bernie or Hillary.