This last election was awful- we had to chose between a turd sandwich and a giant douche- and in another 3.8 years America will vote again. If they think that giant douche did a good job as President, they will reelect him. Or if they decide that giant douche is a horrible person to lead America, they will vote Turd Sandwich. Or maybe, just maybe- America will realize that giant douche is just a giant douche, and turd sandwich is a fucking turd sandwich.
I know that myckob4 is a turd sandwich supporter, so I'll try not to be too offensive, but I don't think that those were very viable options. So when I am old enough, I am going to run for President, and I'd like you to vote for me. I definitely have to pick a party- maybe the green party? The Reform party? There are a lot of parties.
What do you think.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I took the ontheissues quiz and the top 3 parties that matched me were the Green Party, Democratic Party, and Libertarian Party.
I doubt that I would vote for you. You lack understanding of certain issues and have pat answers that don't work that originated from conservative ideals.
Take this for example:
The Brookings institute was created and founded to put the best minds in America to propose solutions and analyze problems, AND to measure the effect of programs already in effect. The conservaturds hate the Brookings institute because the truth hurts them politically and the Brookings Institute always publishes the truth. So the conservaturds founded the Heritage Foundation. Basically, a propaganda mill that counters any and all findings by the Brookings Institute. The Brookings Institute is non-partisan and has zero political agenda. The Heritage Foundation is completely biased and has a far right agenda.
Many of the proposals that you have posted as ideas and or solutions smack of the Heritage Foundation.
I don't put much stock in quizzes. Most are little more than "push-polls" designed to have a predetermined outcome.
At 25, I doubt you have real experience to rule the free world.
Of course not- You can't run until you're 35, so I'm going to run in 16 years, when I'm 41. Would you vote for me at 41?
You'd have to make some major changes.
1st your mischaracterizations of liberals in general.
2ndly your thinking that libertarian is in any way liberal. It's not at all liberal.
Being a public servant is a calling (not from a god). Some get it late, most get it early. I vote for politicians that are dedicated like Obama. You see, most on the left side of the aisle do community work and from there emerge as candidates that want to positively affect their community.
Hillary was inspired by Martin Luther King Jr.
Mischaracterization? How?
Libertarianism is the idea that if you leave everything alone, it will solve itself. And while that may work in a number of ways- it fails when applied to many of the issues facing our nation today. Thus the joke- how many libertarians does t take to screw in a light bulb? None- the market will take care of it. This is my disagreement with Libertarianism- I'd like you to provide an argument like that, otherwise I cannot take seriously your criticism thereof.
Anyway- Hillary s not a good role model. She was the one who said that black people were super predators, and even opposed gay marriage until that became unpopular. She just says whatever whatever the polls say is popular, and doesn't stand on principles. She even admitted that she has a public and private opinion- and just says whatever is popular. Martin Luther King Jr, on the other hand, stuck with his convictions even when they were unpopular. Worst case scenario, Hillary is a Benedict Arnold, and best case scenario she's a "sunshine soldier."
Another lie from the lunatic fringe. She said gangs were super predators; which means you are the one who conflated gangs to equal black people. So congratulations on that bit of racism.
She was specifically referring to black people who referring to gangs. She also said that black people were always late for work-
She didn't say black people so I guess I have to assume you can read minds; or maybe you are lying, again.
@Garfeild
Don't confuse caution for lack of conviction. Hillary is careful what she states publicly because what she says impacts so many. Also if you were attacked with lies and slander as much and for as long as she has been, you'd fully understand the hesitation. She was never against gay marriage. She just didn't want to push forward and reap a giant backlash that would halt progress. Big difference in YOUR portrayal of her intentions. Also, MLK was often criticized for exactly the same thing. Hillary is no Benedict Arnold. It is statements like these by you that make me think that you would not make a good elected official.
I don't need to make statements or arguments against libertarianism. I have made so many that I am actually exhausted. Your statement against it is correct and I have made that statement hundreds of times.
The biggest problem is that Libertarian does not address corruption and the dominant advantage of large corporations. Therefore it isn't realistic. Hense the joke.
Also, this statement is a complete an utter lie and tells me where you get your propaganda (info). "She was the one who said that black people were super predators,..."
"Don't confuse caution for lack of conviction. Hillary is careful what she states publicly because what she says impacts so many. Also if you were attacked with lies and slander as much and for as long as she has been, you'd fully understand the hesitation. She was never against gay marriage. She just didn't want to push forward and reap a giant backlash that would halt progress. Big difference in YOUR portrayal of her intentions."
And your source for this? I might accept it if she said this herself- but otherwise you seem to be cooking up defenses of her.
"Also, MLK was often criticized for exactly the same thing. Hillary is no Benedict Arnold. It is statements like these by you that make me think that you would not make a good elected official."
She was paid large sums of money by Goldman Sachs for speeches. This along with a large trail of scandals including whitewater.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-...
"I don't need to make statements or arguments against libertarianism. I have made so many that I am actually exhausted. Your statement against it is correct and I have made that statement hundreds of times."
I have an idea- write all of your objections and arguments down in an essay, then whenever you need them, just post the link to a google document containing them?
"The biggest problem is that Libertarian does not address corruption and the dominant advantage of large corporations. Therefore it isn't realistic. Hense the joke."
It isn't that libertarianism doesn't address this, but that they do not see it as an issue. I see it as an issue- and beieve that government action is appropriate.
Your hatred for Hillary is unfounded and based on reports that originated at FOX. All of which are totally baseless.
I don't like her because she's just corrupt- and I don't like her. If you have a problem with that, maybe the democrats should chose an even moderately acceptable candidate next election? One who doesn't make me want to puke. Jim Webb for example. I liked him during the primaries- I voted for him, but he lost and then they nominated a wall street dirt bag.
What DID you expect?
Libertarianism is just a revival of Classical Liberalism espoused by John Locke- the basic idea was that the governments sole purpose was to protect life, liberty, and property. Classical Liberalism is only a concept regarding the proper role of government, to say ' libertarianism fails to address corruption' is just nonsense. It's like saying 'the problem with democracy is that it fails to address obesity.' It's just gibberish nonsense without a drop of logic in it.
The Brookings Institute is not left wing-
The choice between someone who suggested thermonuclear war and someone who didn't suggest thermonuclear war was not a hard choice for me. Of course I voted for Hillary. Every voting age American who did not has helped create our current predicament. We're in trouble because so many millions of Americans couldn't recognize the severity of the choice we had before us. A secretive, overly cautious individual with self-serving instincts and a lack of IT competence in email platform selection hardly compares to a pitiless psychopathic narcissist who demeans, threatens, sues, and cheats others, imagines that nuclear proliferation is a good idea, and brags about sexual assault.
Who will I vote for next time? Someone who can distinguish between a less than ideal candidate and one that threatens our species and all life on this planet. Consider that my litmus test. GarfieldRepublican, can you distinguish between the two?
Hilary Clinton was going to start WW3 by setting up a no-fly zone in Syria- so I was going to vote giant douche- but I decided against it and voted for Stein.
WRONG Garfield
1) You don't know What Hillary would do. All you have is the propaganda from right wing spin doctors.
2) There was already a no-fly zone in most of Syria that the Russians just ignored. That didn't start WW3 and wouldn't, even if vigorously enforced.
Highly unlikely.
No. Not in a mean way. Just no.
You may be knowledgeable, but That's not enough. From your posts I can tell you are not a right fit for the job. Myckob4 is correct about the no fly zone. Based on your word choice about that and Hillary, it's clear that the effort you put forth to gain knowledge on the topic was not enough. That's not presidential. The world war 3 argument is an aging, repeated argument that has nothing to back after a proper Intl Politics analysis. Yet, the "Giant Douche" as you've correctly labeled.. is the one talking about how "we need to win wars again" When have we lost? Your vote was wasted on Stein. Why? Because that vote, along with the votes for G. Johnson, written in B.Sanders and Harambe have allowed the guy who actively wants to start world war 3 into the Oval office.
Keep up the learning Garfield. You have potential,but you have a long way to go.
I'm not running until 2032.
No. Mostly because I think name-calling is juvenile and inappropriate behavior for an elected official.
First of all- it was a joke from South Park. Second of all, historically presidential candidates were big on name-calling. Thomas Jefferson called John Adams a "hideous hermaphroditical character."
Can you guess the name of the logical fallacy you used in your reply?
I'll take "Tu Quoque" for $500 Alex.
GarfieldRepublican, why did you ask this question in the first place? I'm willing to discuss and debate and even have a bloody fight on the floor if necessary, so I'm fine with open ended questions and provocative dilemmas. Hell, I'm okay with fun and ironic topics and mind blowing suggestions. But I don't understand what point you're trying to make by asking everyone if we'll vote for you in 15 years. It seems odd to me and I really want to know whether to continue taking you seriously. I'm not trying to be offensive, I just want to know who I'm dealing with.
I was trying to see how I might do in 16 years- by seeing how people would react. Also I wanted to spur a discussion.