Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: US Attacks Syria

  1. #11
    DonatorMarsh UserSoul UserRainbow UserThunder UserCascade UserBoulder UserSS Veteran
    Dragonite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Keizaal
    Posts
    691
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    3DS Friend Code
    4682-8983-8215
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxas View Post
    No one wins in a 2 party system. We would've been stuck with the same person regardless of the outcome. Not that I'm saying more parties necessarily helps, but we need at least 4 candidates to start making any real choices.

    Unless they're all corporatist neocons like Trump and Clinton. At that point, we follow John Locke's advice about abolishing the current government and replacing it with a new one (preferably a night-watchman state).

    It's time people ditched the social contract, btw.
    Whatever your thoughts on the two party system, the reality is that we're stuck with it and the people who gave what's-his-face the protest vote - id est, you - are indirectly responsible for giving us a President with a trigger finger itchier than Dragonite playing Orion, an ego the size of Putin's bank account and the anger control skills of an atom of any given synthetic element.

    Hillary Clinton, despite the spitballs you enjoy blowing at her character might say, is none of those.

    Also, since when has "let's delete the current government and make a new one" ever gone as planned?

  2. #12
    Thunder UserCascade UserBoulder UserSS Veteran
    Roxas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Society
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonite View Post
    Whatever your thoughts on the two party system, the reality is that we're stuck with it and the people who gave what's-his-face the protest vote - id est, you - are indirectly responsible for giving us a President with a trigger finger itchier than Dragonite playing Orion, an ego the size of Putin's bank account and the anger control skills of an atom of any given synthetic element.

    Hillary Clinton, despite the spitballs you enjoy blowing at her character might say, is none of those.

    Also, since when has "let's delete the current government and make a new one" ever gone as planned?
    "The system is inefficient, but we are stuck with it."

    Now don't take it personally, not that you have, but acquiescence to an inefficient system is no realistic way to change things. You must realize that in order to make a change, you have to do something different. Everyone has the ability to vote differently. Unfortunately, they use that same false dichotomy of us being "stuck with the current system" to excuse themselves of walking beyond their original political views. Now I'm no "partisan" Libertarian, and would just as much vote Republican or Democrat if a classical liberal or minarchist made to the general elections on those tickets. Besides, I have enough problems with all political parties in general.

    Also, I would further note that a "protest vote" does not exist. Vote, or not vote, whatever your heart desires. Action and inaction speaks. This year's election spoke when a large number of people did not vote. This election was a disaster

    For Clinton, I recall her clearly wanting a general no-fly zone in Syria and was willing to take out Assad's compounds in the same fashion as Trump. Either way, we were gonna get "Bush's 5th term".

    By "corporatist", I define (or rather as it is generally defined) it as one who advocates for mixed markets and high government intervention in a capitalist economy, or "crony-capitalism" as it's known among those who prefer laissez-faire capitalism. This is both Trump and Clinton. Market centrism is corporatism.

    Finally, I would point out that our founding fathers were heavily inspired by Lockean liberalism in the revolution that started our country after the despotism of the British empire caused them to secede and defend themselves. Along, with help from the French and inspirational writers such as Thomas Paine, we led a pretty successful revolution. Efficient or not, revolutions are important to keep powers in check and restore violated rights.

    Note: Not all revolutions HAVE to be violent.
    Last edited by Roxas; 04-08-2017 at 11:12 PM.
    It takes a Teen Age Riot to get me out of bed right now.

  3. #13
    DonatorMarsh UserSoul UserRainbow UserThunder UserCascade UserBoulder UserSS Veteran
    Dragonite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Keizaal
    Posts
    691
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    3DS Friend Code
    4682-8983-8215
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxas View Post
    Now don't take it personally, not that you have, but acquiescence to an inefficient system is no realistic way to change things. You must realize that in order to make a change, you have to do something different. Everyone has the ability to vote differently. Unfortunately, they use that same false dichotomy of us being "stuck with the current system" to excuse themselves of walking beyond their original political views. Now I'm no "partisan" Libertarian, and would just as much vote Republican or Democrat if a classical liberal or minarchist made to the general elections on those tickets. Besides, I have enough problems with all political parties in general.
    I'm not saying the system is brilliant and shouldn't be touched, so you can stop harping on that. I'm saying it's going to take more than Gary Johnson coming out of the blue and magically doing something that nobody else has even come close to ever doing to solve all of our problems and make everyone happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roxas View Post
    Also, I would further note that a "protest vote" does not exist. Vote, or not vote, whatever your heart desires. Action and inaction speaks. This year's election spoke when a large number of people did not vote. This election was a disaster.
    Except for the fact that for a lot of people, that's what it was. In our current two party system, voting third party has the same end result as not voting. I'm not interested in whether it should be that way or not so you're screaming into the void at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roxas View Post
    For Clinton, I recall her clearly wanting a general no-fly zone in Syria and was willing to take out Assad's compounds in the same fashion as Trump. Either way, we were gonna get "Bush's 5th term".
    That's pretty cool. She might have even stuck to her word!

    The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxas View Post
    Note: Not all revolutions HAVE to be violent.
    Yeah, but if we had another revolution which would you realistically expect to happen, the Founding Fathers or a free-for-all? In a country where half of the people literally can't buy their guns fast enough? Be honest.

  4. #14
    Thunder UserCascade UserBoulder UserSS Veteran
    Roxas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Society
    Posts
    115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonite View Post
    I'm not saying the system is brilliant and shouldn't be touched, so you can stop harping on that. I'm saying it's going to take more than Gary Johnson coming out of the blue and magically doing something that nobody else has even come close to ever doing to solve all of our problems and make everyone happy.



    Except for the fact that for a lot of people, that's what it was. In our current two party system, voting third party has the same end result as not voting. I'm not interested in whether it should be that way or not so you're screaming into the void at this point.



    That's pretty cool. She might have even stuck to her word!





    Yeah, but if we had another revolution which would you realistically expect to happen, the Founding Fathers or a free-for-all? In a country where half of the people literally can't buy their guns fast enough? Be honest.
    There's no telling, imo, what revolution will occur or how it will act. It may be peaceful, it may not.

    Regardless if they keep their word, it's the act of the policy. If it happens, I'll disagree with it. I don't prefer either of them, so get out of the mindset that I'm harping at Clinton in an exclusive manner.

    Also, what would it take if Gary Johnson wasn't enough? This assertion has not been elaborated on thoroughly enough to justify what is "enough" to take action to vote third party. Are you suggesting dogma and cultural influence are what drive a successful campaign? Marketing? These are valid, but mind you, you should vote with your conscience, especially when you may find both "major" candidates unfavorable.

    I'm not saying Gary Johnson had to be perfect (he was far from it, anyway) but I noticed a lot of political centrists that were displeased with Clinton and Trump that were fond of Johnson's policies, but again forced themself into that fallacious false dichotomy "argument" that they had no choice. If those people were to have voted for Johnson, he would have had a considerably larger voter base (although I won't let Johnson off the hook because of his blatantly inefficient and self-destructive first impressions he left on many Americans).

    Stop thinking that because the consensus is going to vote one way that you should too. There is no justification provided that one should vote for one of two authoritarian candidates when there are other options on the table.

    Had Gary Johnson, Hitler, and Mussolini been in an election together, your false dichotomy argument would've likely elected Mussolini, going by the "lesser of two evils" voting method, compared to Hitler's Aryan race platform. Obviously there was more virtue in voting for Johnson in that scenario, even if he was third party.

    You have not given me a good reason to not vote third party, especially when the major candidates were eerily similar and amassing high unfavorability ratings.

    Might I also recall when the Republican party was a third party? Look at it now. How is there no hope or reason for a third party victory?

    If you respond with "it just wouldn't work", I'm calling for a "begging the question" fallacy and leaving this debate.

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonite View Post
    In our current two party system, voting third party has the same end result as not voting
    Appeal to probability fallacy.
    Last edited by Roxas; 04-09-2017 at 07:44 AM.
    It takes a Teen Age Riot to get me out of bed right now.

  5. #15
    DonatorThunder UserCascade UserBoulder UserSS Veteran
    Tuxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Austrian living in Germany
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    3DS Friend Code
    3866-9448-9410
    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/sta...80219961815040
    this guy on twitter summed the whole situation up pretty well imo

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •