HorrorMovieFans.com

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:I used to be more liberal than Jiggy. One of the reasons I am so fond of him.

Nothing wrong with your politics evolving in lockstep with your priorities. I moved from center-right to center-left. I may end up far left in 10 years, we'll see where life takes me.

You know the analogy about the political spectrum being a horseshoe rather than a straight line? As long as you stay out of the gap, it is all good.

True, and I really shouldn't frame it as "far left", what I'm really describing is just solidly left. I think the natural assumption is that all your beliefs aligning with either liberal or conservative ideas makes you "far right/left", it really just means you're solidly in one base or the other. It's the extreme solutions and desire for some totalitarian controlling force that makes you an extremist, and those people are pretty weird.

The best way to break them of that is to stage some interactions with prick cops. Seriously.

showa58taro wrote:Discussion? Buddy, there is no discussion here.

Because you have no argument.

Jigsaw wrote:I also love it when Jason talks about leftist politics, he knows nothing. "Socialists vote for Democrats," or "socialists overwhelmingly supported Sanders." Both bullshit positions that show he doesn't know a thing about what actual progressives and leftists think about this kind of stuff.

Uhh, I never once said that first quote. Ever. Get your shit right.

Socalists overwhelmingly supported Sanders. How you argue that is baffling. Then Hillary rigged it, and Bernie was proven a fraud when he endorsed her.

Jason wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:I also love it when Jason talks about leftist politics, he knows nothing. "Socialists vote for Democrats," or "socialists overwhelmingly supported Sanders." Both bullshit positions that show he doesn't know a thing about what actual progressives and leftists think about this kind of stuff.

Uhh, I never once said that first quote. Ever. Get your shit right.

Socalists overwhelmingly supported Sanders. How you argue that is baffling. Then Hillary rigged it, and Bernie was proven a fraud when he endorsed her.

"Socialists overwhelmingly supported Sanders."

No, they didn't. There were at least eight presidential candidates who were more leftist than Bernie could ever dream of, and it was between those candidates most socialists I know supported and argued about.

I don't want to get my shit right. I want to get my shit left.

I admit, though, it doesn't matter. The point is, you seem to speak with authority on the issue, despite, to my knowledge, not being in contact with groups of socialists throughout the 2016 primary and general election. I know for a fact that many of the socialists and other leftists DID NOT support Bernie Sanders during the primary (certainly some, such as myself, did), but apparently, you know more on this topic than I do, which I just find rather difficult to believe.

The point isn't the specific, it's that the claim you make doesn't hold up to the reality I saw, and you, to my knowledge, haven't been able to back up that claim whatsoever, which seems to tie into much of your political viewpoints, or at least those you post about.

Jigsaw wrote:

Jason wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:I also love it when Jason talks about leftist politics, he knows nothing. "Socialists vote for Democrats," or "socialists overwhelmingly supported Sanders." Both bullshit positions that show he doesn't know a thing about what actual progressives and leftists think about this kind of stuff.

Uhh, I never once said that first quote. Ever. Get your shit right.

Socalists overwhelmingly supported Sanders. How you argue that is baffling. Then Hillary rigged it, and Bernie was proven a fraud when he endorsed her.

"Socialists overwhelmingly supported Sanders."
No, they didn't. most socialists I know-

I don't want to get my shit right.

Oh. Well, if we're just going by the socialists you know than I guess you're right, sure.

No wonder you're on the left!

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:Discussion? Buddy, there is no discussion here.

Because you have no argument.

There isn’t an argument to make. There’s no coherent topic or premise.

If you were a socialist not supporting Bernie in the primary, what is the point of being politically involved or not? If you are at a place that literally has zero chance of winning or even sending a message, seems kinda pointless.

Foo wrote:I used to be more liberal than Jiggy. One of the reasons I am so fond of him.

Thanks, I guess.

Foo wrote:If you were a socialist not supporting Bernie in the primary, what is the point of being politically involved or not? If you are at a place that literally has zero chance of winning or even sending a message, seems kinda pointless.

I don't buy the argument that if you voted third party, you're pointless. Anyone has a chance to send a message, even if it's an obscure candidate (such as Jerry White, of the Socialist Equality Party, or SEP). One doesn't need to be either a Republican or a Democratic in order to be important, in my view.

Jigsaw wrote:

Foo wrote:If you were a socialist not supporting Bernie in the primary, what is the point of being politically involved or not? If you are at a place that literally has zero chance of winning or even sending a message, seems kinda pointless.

I don't buy the argument that if you voted third party, you're pointless. Anyone has a chance to send a message, even if it's an obscure candidate (such as Jerry White, of the Socialist Equality Party, or SEP). One doesn't need to be either a Republican or a Democratic in order to be important, in my view.

Not saying that. Voting for Jill Stein, for instance, sent a message because she at least has enough followers on a legitimate platform to where her endorsement and opinion matters.

I am talking about basically voting for that "rent is too high" guy who wears a boot on his head.

Rent is too damn high, he's right on that.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Rent is too damn high, he's right on that.

I am sure he is full of sharp observations.

And an epic beard. If I could I would.

Foo wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

Foo wrote:If you were a socialist not supporting Bernie in the primary, what is the point of being politically involved or not? If you are at a place that literally has zero chance of winning or even sending a message, seems kinda pointless.

I don't buy the argument that if you voted third party, you're pointless. Anyone has a chance to send a message, even if it's an obscure candidate (such as Jerry White, of the Socialist Equality Party, or SEP). One doesn't need to be either a Republican or a Democratic in order to be important, in my view.

Not saying that. Voting for Jill Stein, for instance, sent a message because she at least has enough followers on a legitimate platform to where her endorsement and opinion matters.

I am talking about basically voting for that "rent is too high" guy who wears a boot on his head.

McMillan's basically a joke candidate (the "Rent is too damn high" guy), as is Vermin Supreme (he's the guy with the boot; different people), and Mothman, who is running for senate in West Virginia (https://www.facebook.com/WVVoteMothmanForUSSenate/).

So when discussing which third parties "send a message", and which candidates are best to support, where's the line drawn?

Jerry White was certainly not a joke candidate. He ran for president twice before under the Socialist Equality Party, in 1996 and 2012. In 2016, he was on the ballot in a single state (Louisiana), and had write-in access in six others (California, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, and West Virginia), giving him 99 total possible electoral votes (not enough to win).

Let's look at two other candidates, both independent.

Ben Hartnell ran in 2016 in an interesting manner. If you go to his web-site (https://www.electthebeard.com/how-we-win.html), he talks in detail about how to become a write-in candidate, how difficult the process is in some states (such as Illinois), and more so, allowed people to vote on what his policy positions should be. Being a teacher, that approach makes some sense (seriously, go to that link and learn some stuff).

He got write-in access in 16 states (according to Green Pages), allowing him access to 170 electoral votes (again, not enough to win).


Cherunda Fox is crazy. I wish her site still had her issues up, but it doesn't. Since she was a possible write-in choice in Indiana, I discussed her on a note I wrote on Facebook about the (then upcoming) 2016 general election. Below is what I wrote about her (I removed the now dead links):

"Fox seems to be a conservative woman, but it’s not easy to tell. Her view on heroin lacks empathy (dead link), her views on white people seems rather childish (dead link), and her inept tax plans astound me (dead link). She’s not had an easy life (dead link), and it’s commendable that she’s running for office given her income (dead link), but she’s not at all what I’d look for in a leader. Read more: dead link"

But guess what? She got write-in access in 25 states, giving her access to potentially 281 electoral votes (enough to win).

The point is, a candidate like Jerry White of the SEP had no chance of winning at all, and got just around 480 votes (Green Papers has it at 471 https://www.thegreenpapers.com/G16/Pres ... ails.phtml and Leip's has it at 485 https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/), seems much more a serious candidate than either Fox or Hartnell, one of whom could have actually won.

So there you have three candidates - Fox, Hartnell, and White. I'd argue all three were somewhat serious candidates, despite Fox's wackiness. Would Fox have been an individual worthy of changing some minds, or sending a message? I doubt it. Hartnell was certainly not taking it entirely seriously, but he did go through the motions and provided some interesting insight into the write-in process. White had the most policies between the three of them and yet, because he had the lowest amount of potential electoral votes, he's the least "important"?

I'm getting a bit muddled in what I'm trying to say, so I'll try to make it short:

I voted Stein (via write-in), and that's acceptable to you because she had "enough followers on a legitimate platform." So a candidate that has legitimate ideas, such as Jerry White, or maybe random independents like Jason Mutford (he had write-in access in only one state, but I sort of liked him based off an online interview), but not enough followers, isn't worth voting for?

I'm guessing that you'd be okay with someone voting for the Libertarian and Green parties. How about the Constitution? Darrell Castle didn't do great in 2016 (he did do better that Goode in 2012 and Baldwin in 2008, though). Would they be a legitimate party to vote for?

Or is it only the crazy or joke candidates, like McMillan, or Supreme, that people should avoid? Sorry for the essay, but obviously, I think about third party politics a lot.

Jigsaw wrote:

Foo wrote:

Jigsaw wrote:

Foo wrote:If you were a socialist not supporting Bernie in the primary, what is the point of being politically involved or not? If you are at a place that literally has zero chance of winning or even sending a message, seems kinda pointless.

I don't buy the argument that if you voted third party, you're pointless. Anyone has a chance to send a message, even if it's an obscure candidate (such as Jerry White, of the Socialist Equality Party, or SEP). One doesn't need to be either a Republican or a Democratic in order to be important, in my view.

Not saying that. Voting for Jill Stein, for instance, sent a message because she at least has enough followers on a legitimate platform to where her endorsement and opinion matters.

I am talking about basically voting for that "rent is too high" guy who wears a boot on his head.

McMillan's basically a joke candidate (the "Rent is too damn high" guy), as is Vermin Supreme (he's the guy with the boot; different people), and Mothman, who is running for senate in West Virginia (https://www.facebook.com/WVVoteMothmanForUSSenate/).

So when discussing which third parties "send a message", and which candidates are best to support, where's the line drawn?

Jerry White was certainly not a joke candidate. He ran for president twice before under the Socialist Equality Party, in 1996 and 2012. In 2016, he was on the ballot in a single state (Louisiana), and had write-in access in six others (California, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, and West Virginia), giving him 99 total possible electoral votes (not enough to win).

Let's look at two other candidates, both independent.

Ben Hartnell ran in 2016 in an interesting manner. If you go to his web-site (https://www.electthebeard.com/how-we-win.html), he talks in detail about how to become a write-in candidate, how difficult the process is in some states (such as Illinois), and more so, allowed people to vote on what his policy positions should be. Being a teacher, that approach makes some sense (seriously, go to that link and learn some stuff).

He got write-in access in 16 states (according to Green Pages), allowing him access to 170 electoral votes (again, not enough to win).


Cherunda Fox is crazy. I wish her site still had her issues up, but it doesn't. Since she was a possible write-in choice in Indiana, I discussed her on a note I wrote on Facebook about the (then upcoming) 2016 general election. Below is what I wrote about her (I removed the now dead links):

"Fox seems to be a conservative woman, but it’s not easy to tell. Her view on heroin lacks empathy (dead link), her views on white people seems rather childish (dead link), and her inept tax plans astound me (dead link). She’s not had an easy life (dead link), and it’s commendable that she’s running for office given her income (dead link), but she’s not at all what I’d look for in a leader. Read more: dead link"

But guess what? She got write-in access in 25 states, giving her access to potentially 281 electoral votes (enough to win).

The point is, a candidate like Jerry White of the SEP had no chance of winning at all, and got just around 480 votes (Green Papers has it at 471 https://www.thegreenpapers.com/G16/Pres ... ails.phtml and Leip's has it at 485 https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/), seems much more a serious candidate than either Fox or Hartnell, one of whom could have actually won.

So there you have three candidates - Fox, Hartnell, and White. I'd argue all three were somewhat serious candidates, despite Fox's wackiness. Would Fox have been an individual worthy of changing some minds, or sending a message? I doubt it. Hartnell was certainly not taking it entirely seriously, but he did go through the motions and provided some interesting insight into the write-in process. White had the most policies between the three of them and yet, because he had the lowest amount of potential electoral votes, he's the least "important"?

I'm getting a bit muddled in what I'm trying to say, so I'll try to make it short:

I voted Stein (via write-in), and that's acceptable to you because she had "enough followers on a legitimate platform." So a candidate that has legitimate ideas, such as Jerry White, or maybe random independents like Jason Mutford (he had write-in access in only one state, but I sort of liked him based off an online interview), but not enough followers, isn't worth voting for?

I'm guessing that you'd be okay with someone voting for the Libertarian and Green parties. How about the Constitution? Darrell Castle didn't do great in 2016 (he did do better that Goode in 2012 and Baldwin in 2008, though). Would they be a legitimate party to vote for?

Or is it only the crazy or joke candidates, like McMillan, or Supreme, that people should avoid? Sorry for the essay, but obviously, I think about third party politics a lot.

It is not like there is a hard line, but there has to be enough followers so those ideas are legitimized. Or even potential followers, where they are within say two degrees of mainstream politics. Anything too far out there is too easily dismissed.

Foo wrote: It is not like there is a hard line, but there has to be enough followers so those ideas are legitimized. Or even potential followers, where they are within say two degrees of mainstream politics. Anything too far out there is too easily dismissed.

I don't know, "too far out there" strikes me as somewhat subjective.

Jigsaw wrote:

Foo wrote: It is not like there is a hard line, but there has to be enough followers so those ideas are legitimized. Or even potential followers, where they are within say two degrees of mainstream politics. Anything too far out there is too easily dismissed.

I don't know, "too far out there" strikes me as somewhat subjective.

Of course. It is politics.