Ludeon Forums

Just curious :P I didn't vote 'cause I'm not American

Missing the: "Hell yes Bernie, but no American so..." Option :)

Voting is for whitey. I won't participate in The Man's system.
I hate politics  >:(

I voted for Johnson....

Did not vote. Enormous waste of time and energy. Panem et circenses.

Being a libertarian means always losing, so why humor the political class?

I voted for the lesser evil because even though I knew she was an unashamedly, corrupt politician in bed with Wall Street I couldn't stand the thought of a 10-year old having access to the worlds most powerful arsenal. Now that he's won, I've made it a new hobby of mine to attend every protest against him in my area (the Women's March was fun).  :P I also make sure to express my rage in the form of a polite phone call to my local representative everyday. Hopefully, with enough pressure and little help from the orange blob himself, the Tyrant will crumble.  8)

On a sidenote, this past election was really the "Party of Greed" vs the "Party of Stupid." Democrats have been selling out the workers for several decades starting with at least the Clintons. Sadly, as Hillary found out in November, Wall Street checks can't buy you Union voters. The Republicans, meanwhile, have been courting the delusional and racist far right since Nixon. In other words, they let stupid in and gave it a seat at the table. Now stupid is at the head of the table and the rest of the Republican party are tied to their chairs!  :D

Quote from: sadpickle on January 30, 2017, 06:55:21 PM
Did not vote. Enormous waste of time and energy. Panem et circenses.

Being a libertarian means always losing, so why humor the political class?

More votes they get each year, the bigger chance they get at being in the debates. This year if they would have had 100,000 more votes in 2012 they would have gotten to debate.

I think republicans needed to win to wake the left up to the fact that identity politics doesnt win elections. Say what you want about the man but he is keeping his word. Very rare in political arena.

Quote from: KillTyrant on February 02, 2017, 10:37:35 PM
I think republicans needed to win to wake the left up to the fact that identity politics doesnt win elections. Say what you want about the man but he is keeping his word. Very rare in political arena.

I don't buy that for a second. Instead, what I think it was was Hillary's lack of credibility when it came to her promises. She could parrot Bernie all she wanted but I never met anyone, even her most ardent supporters, who believed she was going to come through on any of those promises. It also didn't help that there were individuals within the DNC who were quite obviously biased towards her and sabotaged her opponents in the primary basically whenever they could. In a way, people like Debbie Schultz actually did more harm than good for her chances at getting elected. So in the end, many Democrats were already feeling disheartened by November.

Then again, there was also the failure of the mainstream press to callout Trump on his major factual fallacies, the failure of the republican party to do a basic sanity check when it came to their candidates, and finally the FBI director who mysteriously went against procedure when it came to Hillary's ultimately fruitless investigation but remained silent on Trump's ongoing one.

I hope Trump will be gone by the end of 2017. According to many constitutional lawyers (both republican and democrat), he's already committed multiple impeachable offenses. And then there's the fact that you don't have to impeached to removed as president. Congress could probably argue that his deranged decisions and proclamations are a sign of mental impairment and have him removed under those grounds. Finally, there's the ongoing investigation into how the Russians influenced the election in his favor. He's most likely never going be found guilty of anything but it'll surely damage his already record low favorability ratings. Ultimately, however, the true test will come from the Republican lead Congress. This government was designed so a strong man could never come to power without the acquiescence of Congress. Will Republicans continue the same strain of destructive partisanship they've had over the last eight years and support a wannabe fascist even if it means burning the Constitution? Being a somewhat of a cynic... I think they probably will unless Trump does something truly ridiculous. Then again, they could just brand it as "Fake News" and tell their voters to ignore the fact that Putin now has a seat in the oval office.

The best match for me in the polls is "Hate Trump", but that kind of goes without saying :P

Quote from: milon on February 06, 2017, 02:10:52 PM
The best match for me in the polls is "Hate Trump", but that kind of goes without saying :P

Hehe, join the club :P

Quote from: PotatoeTater on February 01, 2017, 03:46:53 PM
More votes they get each year, the bigger chance they get at being in the debates. This year if they would have had 100,000 more votes in 2012 they would have gotten to debate.

I've never heard this before. I did some Googling and was unable to find anything attesting to this. But I do know a bit about the Commission of Presidential Debates (CPD) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates), the group that hosts presidential debates in the US since 1988.

Contrary to some popular belief that the commission is "nonpartisan", the commission is clearly bipartisan, chaired by the heads of the Democratic and Republican parties. From the outset they've been very clear they don't want 3rd parties having any presence in the debates, and they've been very successful at keeping them out. They have an absurd rule about a party candidate "garnering (an average of) at least 15% support across five national polls." This is very clever, because while it looks like they're just trying to keep out the crackpots, hitting 15% is not easy to do if you can't, you know, debate on television. Furthermore, the CPD gets to pick which five polls they will use to determine eligibility, with input from Gallup editor-in-chief Dr. Frank Newport (more details here (http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/29/yes-gary-johnson-could-make-it-into-the).) Anyone interested in a 3rd party has to look for independent debates, which the candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties never attend (even if invited). These independent debates are rarely televised if ever, so they reach a very small audience.

I imagine, if a 3rd party was close to reaching the 15% figure, the CPD would simply revise the number up to 20%, or something like that. It's not like there's anything anyone could do to stop them. There is a (likely doomed) legal challenge (http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/13/oral-arguments-heard-in-libertarian-part) against the CPD alleging they are bipartisan and unfairly exclude 3rd parties (a naked fact, but these things have to be ruled on). It's not the first time the organization has been challenged, and it won't be the first time they've won this sort of thing either. The system is rigged against third parties.

As for why I didn't vote, really, it's because my vote is mathematically insignificant. If votes for Gary Johnson could have advanced Libertarianism, I might have troubled myself (maybe). But the fact of the matter is the votes hardly matter. 2016 was a banner year for the LP, and we still performed dismally.

Quote from: Louisthebadassrimworlder on January 23, 2017, 11:49:51 AM
Just curious :P I didn't vote 'cause I'm not American

luckly im not either thank lucifer . oh and on the verification
' you cool a room with an air ____ ' air con ? air cooler ? i dono about u lot but i call it a fan ... XD

Quote from: ryanlumley on February 12, 2017, 10:46:49 PM
' you cool a room with an air ____ ' air con ? air cooler ? i dono about u lot but i call it a fan ... XD

Must be an American thing. The answer "conditioner" seems obvious to me, an American. We don't shorten it to "air con", only to "AC". I hope this extremely important message reaches you Ryan Lumley.  :P

This thread is special.

I supported trump, but didn't vote because I live in a liberal state.

I can't stand the political correctness, taboo, refusal to hear criticism / defenses, and its one of the bigger issues I supported him, because I'm sick and tired of the idea that discussions of "certain" things should be shut down.

so now you have a president who literally shouts down journalists when they ask him questions he doesn't like. Congrats.

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on February 28, 2017, 06:16:48 AM
so now you have a president who literally shouts down journalists when they ask him questions he doesn't like. Congrats.

Word. The US elected the most safe-spacy president in history.

That's democracy in a nutshell.

You don't always get the good people ruling.

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on February 28, 2017, 06:16:48 AM
so now you have a president who literally shouts down journalists when they ask him questions he doesn't like. Congrats.

Hes nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

And even if he was, I'd rather be forced to not question 1 man (snip)...

Edit by moderator: Thread hijack prevention

....Than be censored otherwise   ::)

Trump is helping some aspects of the economy alot, but it's most likely short term.
But he's not helping for the right reasons, he's just making corrupt officials realize that if they don't clean up their act we might start nuclear war.

QuoteShort term

You mean short as in before, or AFTER he leaves office?

I can see democrats messing up what he did, once he leaves...

QuoteRight reasons

What?

Quotewar

Hilary wanted a war with Russia... I think if a war starts, Donald wont be the one declaring it..

Quote from: mumblemumble on March 09, 2017, 09:39:43 PM

QuoteShort term

You mean short as in before, or AFTER he leaves office?

I can see democrats messing up what he did, once he leaves...

QuoteRight reasons

What?

Quotewar

Hilary wanted a war with Russia... I think if a war starts, Donald wont be the one declaring it..

Before he leaves office withing two years we might see some political mess up with say Iran. Or an escalation in the middle east. By war I mean a situation with either Russia or India. Donald won't be the one declaring it, but his actions could tip the scales in other nations declaring it on us or our proxies in NATO defacto dragging us along too.

2 years? So you think an assassination or impeachment will happen?

I hope not

if Iran itself, declares war over something like this well, it will be bad, and I'm annoyed that nobody is bringing up the response, or lack their of, to isis, and the Israels response to gaza strip, and all that.

Middle east has been a battleground for a VERY long time, and what would be best is to fuck off and worry about AMERICAS intrests, and not Israels. They have enough military tech they can hold their own...

Quote from: mumblemumble on March 09, 2017, 09:39:43 PM
I can see democrats messing up what he did, once he leaves...

Well, depending on what Trump will do, the next president might have to save and revert whatever Trump messed up.

Libertarian could be in the pool.

Well, considering I don't trust MSM at all, the fact almost all of them seem to hate trump makes me confident hes doing something right  :)

Who knows, maybe he can remove sexuality out or politics.. ..but thats a MASSIVE pipe dream

Trump removing "sexuality from politic" ?
Taking that phrase in a global way, I'll quote a great sage of the internet by saying : "lol"

The Troll in Chief said (among other) that women should dress "womanly" on the jobs (this is probably a matter of time before he drop more absurdity like "enforcing gender-role" to distract the press). To drive the irony even further Trump's daughter have a business making business suit (advertised by Trump presidency).
So as a pipe dream I think this one would cross into alternate reality (but hey! Don't trust this "Fake-reality" of ours).

There's waayyyyyy too much to say about him, so I'll just shorten to this :
- He isn't a wannabe dictator, he isn't stupid enough for that, but he's an egocentric plutocrat with little grasp about ethic.
- He's unlikely to start a war, he's however clearly going to monetize the risk of a war. He can't protect Defense Manufacturers lobbies jobs if there's no threats to build army for. If the US wasn't bound to defend allies you can wonder if Trump would without being paid for that (or risking impeachment over that).

When I say sex, I mean peoples sexual choices, like who they fuck, being premiscuous, and if they cross dress, ect... These are choices, and not exactly productive choices, yet are politically protected, because raisins.

Things like dressing womanly, for a woman, well.. Theres benefits to such, in society. Old days were nice, when men were men, women were women. And this is the fine distinguishment : choice shouldn't be protected, if you make dumb choices. Not from criticism, at least.

TL;DR : Theres freedom of choice, but don't be shocked if people dislike you, or treat you different due to choice.

Quotelittle grasp on ethic

I'd say he just doesn't have a filter.

Theres a BIG difference between being a prick, and having no ethics. I'm very similar, in that I don't care if I offend folks, but, have ethics.

Quotemonetize risk

Isn't this any president, pretty much? Especially if conflict it on the horizon (it was before he was elected) why not prepare?

Also, reminder obama killed tons of people during his administration, via drones alone.

Quote from: mabor0shi on January 23, 2017, 05:57:21 PM
Voting is for whitey. I won't participate in The Man's system.

I hate politics  >:(

lol that is the single most asinine post i have ever seen in regards to politics. If you were trolling then please let me know because if you weren't you seem to be very uneducated towards the actual importance of voting as it has nothing to do with the color of your skin despite what you probably assume is popular opinion.

To be honest, some people are dead serious about "down with whitey" stuff.

theres a LOT of racist black people now adays.

Remember the capturing, torturing of the white disabled man in chicago?

... ...I do suspect a certain amount of people who say they dont vote, actually just have felonies. Black or white, or other.

Quote from: mumblemumble on March 12, 2017, 12:56:34 PM
When I say sex, I mean peoples sexual choices, like who they fuck, being premiscuous, and if they cross dress, ect... These are choices, and not exactly productive choices, yet are politically protected, because raisins.

I almost forgot how you go on trying to defend your prejudices.
- how "womanly" is defined change with time, today lady wear military uniform and business pant and that's womanly now. There's more benefit in fighting morons enforcing dress code for stupid reason (like say a boss who fire a women because she refused to wear heels or skirt)
- Future days when men and women can be anything they want without fearing bigots will be nicer than the "old days", that's progress.
- (all) choices don't have be protected, but discrimination, harassment, intimidation... and all kind of attempt to FORCE a person or a group to change their (legal) choice have to be fought against, that's a rules part of Human's Right. So, if someone made the dumb choice of spreading lies and smear against a subgroup he hate, he won't be protected when basic anti-harassment rules are enforced against them.
- Mumble, considering your (known) opinions I'm not sure you have a better grasp of ethic than Trump (and if you do that would still be worrying).

Quotemonetize risk
Isn't this any president, pretty much? Especially if conflict it on the horizon (it was before he was elected) why not prepare?

Not at all.
In correctly working Human-Rights-defending-country Military expenditure is justified for peacekeeping, dissuasion, and defense (which include allies). Not to make money by allowing threats to grow bigger so you can sell more weapon.

QuoteAlso, reminder obama killed tons of people during his administration, via drones alone.

Killing terrorists, terrorist leader, and preventing them from claiming a country and from covertly generating more terrorists attack while spreading fundamentalism. All the while trying to minimize innocent death
Reminder : Trump claimed he wanted to deliberately "kill the family of ISIS members" (which [1] can be innocent [2] would encourage Islamist who fight as martyr)

So, what was your point?

It hasn't really changed, just people try to changes societies perception on it. Certain things are inherently masculine and feminine, and even if men or women do what is not typical of their sex, and rock it, it doesn't suddenly make it the opposite. Its also not the end of the world for small things, but we should be aware of the effects of it, on hormonal levels, habits, ect. Often these little things are ignored, but have huge effects. Often we wonder things like "why is this boy timid" or "why is this girl premiscuous" and we don't look at things like parental roles of mother and father, thinking "they cant be it", but at the same time, theres very little clear conclusion otherwise.

Quotefearing bigots

Most of the time "bigots" say stuff as warnings, and people get offended because they do not want to hear truth. I myself welcome any criticism to myself, because I'm extremely secure on myself, and shutting things out only makes me a worse person. This doesn't mean it should be rude, but lets be honest : biggot means anyone who disapproves of any of your life choices. So bigot to me is a non word, at this point.

Regardless of if you agree or not, criticism is mainly hurtful if you let it, and the things they warn you of WILL HAPPEN, regardless of if you hear criticisms or not. So I guess it comes down to if you want to be open minded of closedminded.

"discrimination" is a bit of a can of worms. We all discriminate, DAILY, but its subjective if you think things are "ok" to discriminate for. People are discriminated against all the time for being high, which is a choice, but you think some things should be protected. I view it as, protection should scale with how productive / destructive something is. This in itself is open to interpretation, but is a DAMN good start

As with legal, I hope you know law is a means to, ideally, instill morality. Relying upon law, and only law, gets you nowhere, because then you have nothing to say if law is ok or not. I mean, hypothetical scenario : if raping any person you meet was made legal, overnight, KNOW ID BE RIGHT ON YOUR SIDE CHANGING IT BACK, because it aint right, and you KNOW its not right, REGARDLESS of what law says. We know rape is DESTRUCTIVE, speading disease, making unwed mothers, having a girls innocence taken from her from someone who won't stay, ect.  We should always be aware of this, that law should reflect some form of morality and productivity, that HELPS more than it hurts.

Sorry to see you think I lack ethics, but consider this..
1 : I wish to help people be better. Regardless of if you agree with my METHODS, or LOGIC, most of my posts are sympathetic, and wanting people to be well, EVEN IF, you think I'm entirely wrong, its pretty evident this is my motive
2 :  I am always willing to discuss, and I don't think once in my entire stay here, I have EVER refused to talk to someone about ANYTHING. I do not fear reproval, I seek it, I seek it very much. Because of this, I would call myself a wise man. but at the same time, I will be very prodding / questioning to criticisms, to make sure they have a firm basis. Because frankly, the world is full of half baked criticisms, fallacies, and emotional thinking, and it pays to discriminate between the 2. And honestly, this is contrary to what I see with you : I have always seen you readily reject my opinions, on the basis of "these are opinions I disagree with", rather than objectively analyzing and weighing my argument, and considering ideas. You must always start with "maybe its possible, lets try and disprove it or prove it".
3 : I've heard out countless people, even if I disagree with them. I'm not sure if you recall, but I spoke with a woman on here (forget her name, and wouldn't mention it anyway) who spoke about being attracted to dogs, ect, and while I criticised her, I was incredibly friendly and warm to her. I expressed concern that it might affect her mentality and she accepted this, and it was fine. She wasn't devastated, she wasn't suicidal, ect, it was all good. This is one of the reasons I think the idea behind "bullying" groups is sometimes very flawed : Yes, out and out harassment (something along the lines of "fuck you kill yourself aids faggot", or something else vile) is hateful and damaging, but criticizing, politely a group, I think is healthy and needed. And people whom get upset by this are often not so much offended by that, but more so by that they are incredibly insecure ABOUT said topic.

Quotepeacekeeping, ect

Whats the difference between all that babble and "making money" off it.

What if its to defend people, and also makes money?

What then?

QuoteMinimize innocent death

If obama wanted that, he would of done on the ground troop arrests...

.....Instead he blew up entire buildings of non combatant innocents.

https://www.stpete4peace.org/obama-fact-sheet

He actually bombed a hospital too, and apologized for it.. ... A fucking hospital

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/asia/obama-apologizes-for-bombing-of-afghanistan-hospital.html

So please, don't try saying he tried to do it as peacefully as possible

And don't crap all over trump BEFORE crapping on obama, k?

As for ISIS, you realize these are the people genociding christians, muslims, gang raping and putting in a slave trade for abducted girls from like, 8 and up, using them as sex toys? They are demons : Humanity is voluntary, and these people reject it, thus, are not human. Fuck, they aren't even muslim. As tolerant as I am, and as much faith as I have in people being able to change (remember, I think gays and trans can change) Such vileness is nearly impossible to purge without violence, and it comes down to weighing the lives of the destroyers to the lives of the destroyed : yes, saving lives is a wonderful ideal, but sometimes lives are saved by intentionally taking others.

If you have any problem with the idea of nazis, and their past, you shouldn't be THAT offended at this.... ...Unless you wish to say you would have no problem being friends with say, the son of a nazi general for example.. But I doubt you are prepared to say that.

.... You must ask yourself, how vile, how bad can ideas get before it taints everything around it? mass rapes? Child sacrifices? At what point do you start becoming more "broad brush" in dealing with it? Never? Then are you accepting that you might never be getting rid of it as effectively? Is saving a few prospective good people out of the bad, worth endangering the lives of more?

.... You gotta ask these things.

This has gone far enough off topic.