Jump to content
Team Avolition
Sign in to follow this  
revan114

First Presidential Debate is Tonight

Recommended Posts

phlood    19

Presidential debates in one photo...

 

post-100259-0-62832500-1474931389_thumb.png

Edited by phlood

Share this post


Link to post
Maniakdude    100

Who wants alcohol poisoning?

 

CtTnv15VUAAhp70.jpg

I would make this drinking game, but I still feel a bit queasy from last night.

Want to know my opinion of them (or our political system of picking between 2 idiots, with a third voice largely ignored)?

e6stRla.png

Edited by Maniakdude
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Trotterly    996

Seems like Clinton won the first debate by a long-shot. That's just my opinion though, and I might be biased since I'd be voting for her.

 

Either way, I wish Bernie was on that stage :c

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Remy    307

Who wants alcohol poisoning?

 

-snip-

 

Welp, time to pull out the Bailey's.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Cym4tic    739

300 million people in the United States and we have to pick between these two.

Edited by Cym4tic

Share this post


Link to post
Remy    307

300 million people in the United States and we have to pick between these two.

 

A giant douche or a turd sandwich.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
asmcint    279

There are going to be 4 people on the ballot.

 

And only two have any chance to win because the brunt of the voter base focuses purely on party nominees.

Share this post


Link to post
blind7125    1924

 

 

And only two have any chance to win because the brunt of the voter base focuses purely on party nominees.

 

God forbid, you actually vote for the other two options, lest the primary party voters lynch you. There's a better candidate outside of the asses and elephants? Fuck you, that person won't win and you're dividing the party you evil chode.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Voting for the less of two evils is still a vote for evil.

The "they won't win so I'm not voting for them" mentality is exactly why they have a hard time. Maybe not be part of it and vote for someone you'd think would do a decent job at being president?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Remy    307

The "they won't win so I'm not voting for them" mentality is exactly why they have a hard time. Maybe not be part of it and vote for someone you'd think would do a decent job at being president?

 

There's a quote from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire which I like. It's when Dumbledore says to Harry "Dark times lie ahead. Soon we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy." Most people will just choose the path of least resistance and not give two-shakes about the consequences, rather than defend and support a far less popular but far more morally positive candidate that has a much smaller chance of winning. I think it's got to do with the mentality of 'Better to vote for an inevitability, than to vote for a possibility'. Most people don't want to feel like that they fought for nothing, so they will just preemptively vote for the obvious winner.

 

Heck, it's not that different from over here in Australia. Last election we had to pick between a pig-eared, two-faced, lying sociopath and a spineless, witless, brown-nosing political puppet. What are our choices now? A pig-eared, two-faced, lying sociopath and a spineless, witless, brown-nosing political puppet!

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614

God forbid, you actually vote for the other two options, lest the primary party voters lynch you. There's a better candidate outside of the asses and elephants? Fuck you, that person won't win and you're dividing the party you evil chode.

 

Being real here, Jill "WiFi" Stein and Gary "Aleppo" Johnson are fucking idiots in their own right. Stein is a fucking idiot that thinks that we should withdraw all overseas military bases, cut defense spending in half, and make the National Guard the main fighting force of the US. She also thinks that vaccines might be giving our kids autism, GMOs should be outright banned until they're proven "safe", and that wireless signals might be giving us cancer. Johnson is a glorified neocon who is not a libertarian by any metric. He thinks the government should be able to force vaccination on kids, and that businesses should be legally required to serve customers they don't want to. He didn't know what Aleppo was when asked in an interview.

 

Trump and Hillary aren't likable, but at least politically competent. The next two runners up couldn't maintain a PR image to save their fucking life. I would take Trump or Hillary over Stein or Johnson any day of the week.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Afrodude4    199

Being real here, Jill "WiFi" Stein and Gary "Aleppo" Johnson are fucking idiots in their own right. Stein is a fucking idiot that thinks that we should withdraw all overseas military bases, cut defense spending in half, and make the National Guard the main fighting force of the US. She also thinks that vaccines might be giving our kids autism, GMOs should be outright banned until they're proven "safe", and that wireless signals might be giving us cancer. Johnson is a glorified neocon who is not a libertarian by any metric. He thinks the government should be able to force vaccination on kids, and that businesses should be legally required to serve customers they don't want to. He didn't know what Aleppo was when asked in an interview.

 

Trump and Hillary aren't likable, but at least politically competent. The next two runners up couldn't maintain a PR image to save their fucking life. I would take Trump or Hillary over Stein or Johnson any day of the week.

 

I also don't appreciate the sentiment going around that people are either witholding their vote or voting for Clinton/Trump because they don't know enough about them, don't believe a third party can win, or because there's some grand bias against third party candidates. In reality neither of them have particularly attractive platforms and are both very much lacking in any sort of charisma that might make them appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
MasterFux    390

Being real here, Jill "WiFi" Stein and Gary "Aleppo" Johnson are fucking idiots in their own right. Stein is a fucking idiot that thinks that we should withdraw all overseas military bases, cut defense spending in half, and make the National Guard the main fighting force of the US. She also thinks that vaccines might be giving our kids autism, GMOs should be outright banned until they're proven "safe", and that wireless signals might be giving us cancer. Johnson is a glorified neocon who is not a libertarian by any metric. He thinks the government should be able to force vaccination on kids, and that businesses should be legally required to serve customers they don't want to. He didn't know what Aleppo was when asked in an interview.

 

Trump and Hillary aren't likable, but at least politically competent. The next two runners up couldn't maintain a PR image to save their fucking life. I would take Trump or Hillary over Stein or Johnson any day of the week.

That, and the fact that Johnson and Stein losing horribly has nothing to do with "they're too small" to win mentality and everything to do with the fact that people don't even know them. You forget that the majority of Americans are neither internet nor politically savvy. But yes, they're both fucking morons who would never manage to retain their image should a scandal happen, which would DEFINITELY happen. Clinton's fucking evil but at least she can look alright.

Share this post


Link to post
blind7125    1924

 

Johnson is a glorified neocon who is not a libertarian by any metric. He thinks the government should be able to force vaccination on kids, and that businesses should be legally required to serve customers they don't want to. He didn't know what Aleppo was when asked in an interview.

 

Johnson certainly isn't great, but neither of those two points are contrary to being a libertarian. Zero government intervention or regulation, libertarianism is not. While yes, the party runs on limited government and personal liberty as its platform, unless you're a dogmatic idiot you're going to remain within reason.

 

Both of these policies actually explicitly agree with one of the platform messages.

 

"Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

 

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

 

In both of these scenarios, the actions of the individual are interfering with the equal liberty of another. The lack of mandatory vaccines opens up the possibility of harm to another individual.

 

Allowing businesses to deny services limits the freedom of the individual. While yes, the owner of a small business is an individual, the circumstances put the customer's freedom first. As an example, would a business owner be in line with "peaceful and honest" behavior if he were the only grocer in the area? Would the business owner be peaceful if he denied, say, water to a man begging for it?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614

Johnson certainly isn't great, but neither of those two points are contrary to being a libertarian. Zero government intervention or regulation, libertarianism is not. While yes, the party runs on limited government and personal liberty as its platform, unless you're a dogmatic idiot you're going to remain within reason.

 

Both of these policies actually explicitly agree with one of the platform messages.

 

"Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

 

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

 

In both of these scenarios, the actions of the individual are interfering with the equal liberty of another. The lack of mandatory vaccines opens up the possibility of harm to another individual.

 

Allowing businesses to deny services limits the freedom of the individual. While yes, the owner of a small business is an individual, the circumstances put the customer's freedom first. As an example, would a business owner be in line with "peaceful and honest" behavior if he were the only grocer in the area? Would the business owner be peaceful if he denied, say, water to a man begging for it?

 

Not getting vaccinated hurts other people who aren't vaccinated. As for the majority of people who would rather chance autism than die of smallpox, it is a non-issue. Public schools could stop enforcing vaccination requirements and a huge, huge majority of kids would probably still get vaccinated anyway.

 

Allowing an individual's unreasonable demands limits the freedom of an individual to start a business. Why do the customer's freedoms necessarily come first? A segment of the population that is neglected by one business will be served by another. I am completely lost as to why a business should be obligated to perform a service that is against their beliefs or reflects poorly upon them.

 

If a town is full of people that almost exclusively eat cakes that are in the shape of Allah fucking a pig, and bakeries are obligated to bake these cakes, you've basically given somebody who practices Islam a choice between their religion or running a bakery. If a town only has Muslim bakeries, and you only eat cakes that are in the shape of Allah fucking a pig, you have the choice to bake your own Allah-pig-fuck cake, or start Allah's Well That Ends Well Bakery.

 

The Libertarian party and platform as of the last twelve months has radically changed into "LOOK AT US! WE'RE NOT THOSE TWO ASSHOLES, AND WE'RE FUCKIN' TIGHT!" "Peaceful" and "honest" are so subjective it's not even worth pursuing. Adding government enforcement to a shitty situation usually results in a shittier situation. There's exceptions, of course, but it's hard to go back when you've lost options.

 

574c5c1fc461889c098b45ac.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
blind7125    1924

God forbid, I don't know, you live in a place like my hometown where there are no other options. You have one grocery store in town. It's not reasonable to just ask someone to open their own store.

 

We're not talking about fucking bakeries. Essential services and stores. You can bake your own cakes at home, you can't make food appear from nowhere though.

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614

God forbid, I don't know, you live in a place like my hometown where there are no other options. You have one grocery store in town. It's not reasonable to just ask someone to open their own store.

 

We're not talking about fucking bakeries. Essential services and stores. You can bake your own cakes at home, you can't make food appear from nowhere though.

 

The situation described is hypothetical; its sole purpose was to prove a point, not be realistic. It roughly parallels the same hypothetical argument concerning a Jewish baker Johnson addressed when asked about the issue. I don't know why I even have to explain that.

 

It's also not reasonable to force people to operate their business in a way they don't want to, even if it's the not-shitty thing to do. If Grand Wizard David Duke Himself took a liking to a specific Harlem grocery store because of its stellar aisle layout, the management would probably tell him to fuck off, and rightfully so. In the current culture of the US, you will find a lot more situations where people will abuse store owners being forced to cater to them than you will find people turning down business (and subsequent revenue) for a shitty reason.

 

There is no such thing as fundamental. People survived before the advent of the grocery store. If you can't make food appear from nowhere, how do those who own the grocery store (mere mortals, just like you) manage such a momentous feat? Ding ding ding! I'll take "it was grown, raised, or otherwise produced/processed as it has been for hundreds of years" for $1000! Huge swathes of the world are subsistence farmers that are a lot worse off than you would be if the owner of the only local grocery store didn't like the melanin content of your skin (or other similar trait). Other people are not the sole source of food, water, and other necessities needed to survive.

Edited by BeeJesus

Share this post


Link to post
blind7125    1924

-snip-

 

I'm going with Poe's law on this one. You are either really fucking stupid, or being a horrible troll.

 

Go live totally isolated, without assistance and see how you like it, cock.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
PigHunter    301

The situation described is hypothetical; its sole purpose was to prove a point, not be realistic. It roughly parallels the same hypothetical argument concerning a Jewish baker Johnson addressed when asked about the issue. I don't know why I even have to explain that.

 

It's also not reasonable to force people to operate their business in a way they don't want to, even if it's the not-shitty thing to do. If Grand Wizard David Duke Himself took a liking to a specific Harlem grocery store because of its stellar aisle layout, the management would probably tell him to fuck off, and rightfully so. In the current culture of the US, you will find a lot more situations where people will abuse store owners being forced to cater to them than you will find people turning down business (and subsequent revenue) for a shitty reason.

 

There is no such thing as fundamental. People survived before the advent of the grocery store. If you can't make food appear from nowhere, how do those who own the grocery store (mere mortals, just like you) manage such a momentous feat? Ding ding ding! I'll take "it was grown, raised, or otherwise produced/processed as it has been for hundreds of years" for $1000! Huge swathes of the world are subsistence farmers that are a lot worse off than you would be if the owner of the only local grocery store didn't like the melanin content of your skin (or other similar trait). Other people are not the sole source of food, water, and other necessities needed to survive.

You've never lived in the bumfuck middle of no where. It's obvious. There's not always a second option. There can't always be a second option. Ever drive through southern South Dakota? There's native reservations around there. They're dirt poor, most of these people live with broken windows and no heat during the winter. Cars are abandoned in many areas and the land goes unused because no one knows how to farm. In the far boonies you'd have to go 50+ miles to a grocery store. If the closest store, which is 50 miles away, decides it doesn't want to serve you because you're native you're absolutely more fucked than you already are. Because of the sparse population and in utter poverty it'd be nearly impossible to open another grocery store and have it succeed; there simply would not be enough customers to keep it going. It's entirely possible someone in that position would have to drive 90 miles to get food for the next few weeks if discrimination was legal. That's a big reason these laws exist and should continue to exist, there's not always a second options and it wouldn't be economically viable for a second option to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614

I'm going with Poe's law on this one. You are either really fucking stupid, or being a horrible troll.

 

Go live totally isolated, without assistance and see how you like it, cock.

 

I'm still waiting on an actual rebuttal that isn't "food is magic" or "you're an asshole". No, I don't think discrimination is OK. I also don't think that businesses should have to serve people that discriminate or work against them. You're making this assumption that every store will have a sign out front that says "ABSOLUTELY *NO* NIGGERS, SPICS, MICKS, ZIPS, OR LIKEWISE".

 

You've never lived in the bumfuck middle of no where. It's obvious. There's not always a second option. There can't always be a second option. Ever drive through southern South Dakota? There's native reservations around there. They're dirt poor, most of these people live with broken windows and no heat during the winter. Cars are abandoned in many areas and the land goes unused because no one knows how to farm. In the far boonies you'd have to go 50+ miles to a grocery store. If the closest store, which is 50 miles away, decides it doesn't want to serve you because you're native you're absolutely more fucked than you already are. Because of the sparse population and in utter poverty it'd be nearly impossible to open another grocery store and have it succeed; there simply would not be enough customers to keep it going. It's entirely possible someone in that position would have to drive 90 miles to get food for the next few weeks if discrimination was legal. That's a big reason these laws exist and should continue to exist, there's not always a second options and it wouldn't be economically viable for a second option to exist.

 

I live about 30 minutes away from the nearest grocery store that stocks anything but beer and a few loaves of bread. I'm a little bit south of prim and proper Bat Country; if you go much further north, it's a scene out of Deliverance. The only thing you see for miles is forest and the occasional decrepit doublewide. Anybody you find is either incredibly poor or a meth cook. Many of those people grow or hunt a huge majority of what they eat.

 

If you think 50 miles is an unbearably long drive, our definitions of BFE greatly differ. The average fuel efficiency has been over 20MPG for over twenty years now. Adding an extra 80 miles to your round trip costs you a little over $10. It's shitty, but luckily for us, everything doesn't instantly go to hell in a handbasket just because it can. A business of non-trivial size (and a 50+ mile radius customer base is quite likely non-trivial) will not turn down revenue unless it is for a very good reason. Indian casinos can give anybody the boot for any reason, including race, gender or religion. How often do you hear about it happening?

Edited by BeeJesus

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×