Random Political Comments

[Headhunter]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

[Tiggnutz]

I think term limits for house and Senate could end these factions in Washington and give different people with different ideas a better shot

[zombie]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

[Headhunter]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

I think the number of people willing to go out on that initial limb and break from the herd is very small and not enough to encourage others to do so. One thing to consider is there is a lot more diversity of principles in play during elections on the left than on the right. The right has its ideological battles, but come election day they are in lockstep and they vote Republican. Democrats are the ones who constantly have to worry about losing should-be voters.

So if the first domino to fall is the Democrats losing ground, which would be more likely from what we can see now, that means handing the Republicans the country for decades.

[zombie]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

I think the number of people willing to go out on that initial limb and break from the herd is very small and not enough to encourage others to do so. One thing to consider is there is a lot more diversity of principles in play during elections on the left than on the right. The right has its ideological battles, but come election day they are in lockstep and they vote Republican. Democrats are the ones who constantly have to worry about losing should-be voters.

So if the first domino to fall is the Democrats losing ground, which would be more likely from what we can see now, that means handing the Republicans the country for decades.

what is it about liberals/leftists that makes them less willing to vote for the big guy, if they disagree on some point or other? is it just the nature of their politics, in contrast to the conservatives?

[Headhunter]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

I think the number of people willing to go out on that initial limb and break from the herd is very small and not enough to encourage others to do so. One thing to consider is there is a lot more diversity of principles in play during elections on the left than on the right. The right has its ideological battles, but come election day they are in lockstep and they vote Republican. Democrats are the ones who constantly have to worry about losing should-be voters.

So if the first domino to fall is the Democrats losing ground, which would be more likely from what we can see now, that means handing the Republicans the country for decades.

what is it about liberals/leftists that makes them less willing to vote for the big guy, if they disagree on some point or other? is it just the nature of their politics, in contrast to the conservatives?

Younger demographic will always hurt them.

[Jigsaw]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

I think the number of people willing to go out on that initial limb and break from the herd is very small and not enough to encourage others to do so. One thing to consider is there is a lot more diversity of principles in play during elections on the left than on the right. The right has its ideological battles, but come election day they are in lockstep and they vote Republican. Democrats are the ones who constantly have to worry about losing should-be voters.

So if the first domino to fall is the Democrats losing ground, which would be more likely from what we can see now, that means handing the Republicans the country for decades.

What does 'should-be voter' mean? Should I, a socialist, have voted for a capitalist piece of shit like Clinton? I'm confused, because she didn't represent me any more than Trump did, yet leftists are 'should-be' voters of Democrats?

[Headhunter]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

I think the number of people willing to go out on that initial limb and break from the herd is very small and not enough to encourage others to do so. One thing to consider is there is a lot more diversity of principles in play during elections on the left than on the right. The right has its ideological battles, but come election day they are in lockstep and they vote Republican. Democrats are the ones who constantly have to worry about losing should-be voters.

So if the first domino to fall is the Democrats losing ground, which would be more likely from what we can see now, that means handing the Republicans the country for decades.

What does 'should-be voter' mean? Should I, a socialist, have voted for a capitalist piece of shit like Clinton? I'm confused, because she didn't represent me any more than Trump did, yet leftists are 'should-be' voters of Democrats?

Again, you should do whatever you want. You're a should-be voter in their calculus.

[Jigsaw]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

I think the number of people willing to go out on that initial limb and break from the herd is very small and not enough to encourage others to do so. One thing to consider is there is a lot more diversity of principles in play during elections on the left than on the right. The right has its ideological battles, but come election day they are in lockstep and they vote Republican. Democrats are the ones who constantly have to worry about losing should-be voters.

So if the first domino to fall is the Democrats losing ground, which would be more likely from what we can see now, that means handing the Republicans the country for decades.

What does 'should-be voter' mean? Should I, a socialist, have voted for a capitalist piece of shit like Clinton? I'm confused, because she didn't represent me any more than Trump did, yet leftists are 'should-be' voters of Democrats?

Again, you should do whatever you want. You're a should-be voter in their calculus.

I don't disagree with that. My main contention is that type of thinking is utterly idiotic, and if we agree on that, then we're cool.

[Jason]

[zombie]

if someone somewhere has it worse than you, then you have no right to speak up.

[Reign in Blood]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

I think the number of people willing to go out on that initial limb and break from the herd is very small and not enough to encourage others to do so. One thing to consider is there is a lot more diversity of principles in play during elections on the left than on the right. The right has its ideological battles, but come election day they are in lockstep and they vote Republican. Democrats are the ones who constantly have to worry about losing should-be voters.

So if the first domino to fall is the Democrats losing ground, which would be more likely from what we can see now, that means handing the Republicans the country for decades.

what is it about liberals/leftists that makes them less willing to vote for the big guy, if they disagree on some point or other? is it just the nature of their politics, in contrast to the conservatives?

I liken it to be pretty simple. There's only one color that truly matters to people, it's green, and very few give a shit about mother earth. One party talks about not stealing your money (not that they practice it), the other likes to talk about stealing your money and then using it for bullshit on which we all disagree. Which one is more likely to have stability and less flip flopping?

[zombie]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

I think the number of people willing to go out on that initial limb and break from the herd is very small and not enough to encourage others to do so. One thing to consider is there is a lot more diversity of principles in play during elections on the left than on the right. The right has its ideological battles, but come election day they are in lockstep and they vote Republican. Democrats are the ones who constantly have to worry about losing should-be voters.

So if the first domino to fall is the Democrats losing ground, which would be more likely from what we can see now, that means handing the Republicans the country for decades.

what is it about liberals/leftists that makes them less willing to vote for the big guy, if they disagree on some point or other? is it just the nature of their politics, in contrast to the conservatives?

I liken it to be pretty simple. There's only one color that truly matters to people, it's green, and very few give a shit about mother earth. One party talks about not stealing your money (not that they practice it), the other likes to talk about stealing your money and then using it for bullshit on which we all disagree. Which one is more likely to have stability and less flip flopping?

so democrats, learn to lie better!

[Reign in Blood]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

I think the number of people willing to go out on that initial limb and break from the herd is very small and not enough to encourage others to do so. One thing to consider is there is a lot more diversity of principles in play during elections on the left than on the right. The right has its ideological battles, but come election day they are in lockstep and they vote Republican. Democrats are the ones who constantly have to worry about losing should-be voters.

So if the first domino to fall is the Democrats losing ground, which would be more likely from what we can see now, that means handing the Republicans the country for decades.

what is it about liberals/leftists that makes them less willing to vote for the big guy, if they disagree on some point or other? is it just the nature of their politics, in contrast to the conservatives?

I liken it to be pretty simple. There's only one color that truly matters to people, it's green, and very few give a shit about mother earth. One party talks about not stealing your money (not that they practice it), the other likes to talk about stealing your money and then using it for bullshit on which we all disagree. Which one is more likely to have stability and less flip flopping?

so democrats, learn to lie better!

I'm fine with that outlook. I see it more as one party likes to ease it in versus stick it in and break it off.

[Headhunter]

The Republicans will continue to outlast their expectancy, but I'm not sure how much longer people are going to buy the trickle down economics. Feels like even conservatives are starting to see it for the con that it is.

[zombie]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

I think the number of people willing to go out on that initial limb and break from the herd is very small and not enough to encourage others to do so. One thing to consider is there is a lot more diversity of principles in play during elections on the left than on the right. The right has its ideological battles, but come election day they are in lockstep and they vote Republican. Democrats are the ones who constantly have to worry about losing should-be voters.

So if the first domino to fall is the Democrats losing ground, which would be more likely from what we can see now, that means handing the Republicans the country for decades.

what is it about liberals/leftists that makes them less willing to vote for the big guy, if they disagree on some point or other? is it just the nature of their politics, in contrast to the conservatives?

I liken it to be pretty simple. There's only one color that truly matters to people, it's green, and very few give a shit about mother earth. One party talks about not stealing your money (not that they practice it), the other likes to talk about stealing your money and then using it for bullshit on which we all disagree. Which one is more likely to have stability and less flip flopping?

so democrats, learn to lie better!

I'm fine with that outlook. I see it more as one party likes to ease it in versus stick it in and break it off.

that still doesn't sound like any kind of good option, but it's your vote, use it how you like.

[Headhunter]

Many Republicans operate from a basically apolitical POV when you think about it. A lot of it comes down to whether or not you feel a sense of communal responsibility, and if so how strongly.

[Reign in Blood]

We're more getting into the realm of actual anarchy and revolution now, because you'd still need very rich people writing checks to bring down either the GOP or Democrats.

you don't think just not voting in the majority, for candidates from either main party would be enough? or do you think that anarchy and revolution would be the only way to get there? i mean disatisfaction and disillusion with those candidates and their parties should be enough. but maybe something needs to jar the masses to bring them to that point.

I think the number of people willing to go out on that initial limb and break from the herd is very small and not enough to encourage others to do so. One thing to consider is there is a lot more diversity of principles in play during elections on the left than on the right. The right has its ideological battles, but come election day they are in lockstep and they vote Republican. Democrats are the ones who constantly have to worry about losing should-be voters.

So if the first domino to fall is the Democrats losing ground, which would be more likely from what we can see now, that means handing the Republicans the country for decades.

what is it about liberals/leftists that makes them less willing to vote for the big guy, if they disagree on some point or other? is it just the nature of their politics, in contrast to the conservatives?

I liken it to be pretty simple. There's only one color that truly matters to people, it's green, and very few give a shit about mother earth. One party talks about not stealing your money (not that they practice it), the other likes to talk about stealing your money and then using it for bullshit on which we all disagree. Which one is more likely to have stability and less flip flopping?

so democrats, learn to lie better!

I'm fine with that outlook. I see it more as one party likes to ease it in versus stick it in and break it off.

that still doesn't sound like any kind of good option, but it's your vote, use it how you like.

As it concerns to keeping your money? Good god there is no good option, they are all swine.

[Reign in Blood]

Many Republicans operate from a basically apolitical POV when you think about it. A lot of it comes down to whether or not you feel a sense of communal responsibility, and if so how strongly.

Or broadly.

[zombie]

As it concerns to keeping your money? Good god there is no good option, they are all swine.

that't how you explained conservatives standing with the big political party. it wasn't my analogy.