Who do you support in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election?

lol y'all need to get off the internet who's even old enough to vote here

 

What? You think a 3rd party president—could in 4 years singlehandedly cause irreversable damage to the earth's climate and possibly destroy the human race?

I think you overestimate the President's power. The only way Gary could possibly end the human race in his term would be to wage nuclear war, and I'm pretty sure that's not in any of his foreign policy plans.

Even if a Johnson presidency ramps up climate change, somehow...
You're still talking about the death of 7 billion people. How do you ever expect all of them to die off before recovering?

I'm sorry, but of all the stupid comments in this thread, I felt this one was on another level. Have a medal.

Speaking of stupid comments in this thread...
Why does everyone think the other candidate is going to destroy America? Sure, they kind of suck, but you guys are giving way too much importance to this election. The president can't actually do much. Worry more about congress, they're the ones who come up with the stupid laws in this country, and they're the ones that won't fix our problems. Look up some of the sh*t your representative or senator has voted for sometime, you might be surprised.

 

My post's only argument was that one shouldn't identify oneself as a certain position if their views contradict much of what that position dictates. To back up that argument, it pointed out all the contradictory views of others.

Forgive me for being rightfully frustrated that one identifies oneself as a certain position despite going against many of its fundamentals.

Of course one need not agree completely with all of Marx's arguments, only his most vital and necessary arguments. For example, you previously had seemingly voiced that human nature is static and hardly changeable. This completely goes against Dialectical Materialism, the most necessary building block of Marxism. With the application of Dialectical Materialism, Marx concluded that human nature was not a static and scarcely changeable attribute of humanity that was determined by such things as genetics, but rather he concluded that human nature was a product of the material conditions that we find within our lives. Without Dialectical Materialism utilized in Marxist theory, Marxist theory goes from scientific and realistic to absurd and worthless idealism.

You initially called yourself a Marxist and now call yourself a Democratic Socialist! Democratic Socialists advocate for reform as opposed to revolution, the main cause for division between Marxists and Democratic Socialists. Marxists called themselves Communists as opposed to Socialists to distinguish themselves from Democratic Socialists that went under the title of Socialists as well. The title of Communist intended to clearly distinguish that the individuals who went under such a title would advocate for revolution as opposed to reform that accomplishes little. Democratic Socialists and Marxists are very different from each other and one should refrain from identifying oneself as the other.

Although I don't suppose you would care much, I assure you that I don't have a dictionary on hand so as to sprinkle my posts with fancy vernacular. I had scored a perfect 100 on my English Regents and had achieved a score of 780 out of 800 on the English section of the SAT. The English that I use here is the English that I typically use on any other important platform. And surely, if I added little to nothing to discussion, why bother responding? If what I had posted was of little worth and value then it clearly required no acknowledgment.

My post's only argument was that one shouldn't identify oneself as a certain position if their views contradict much of what that position dictates. To back up that argument, it pointed out all the contradictory views of others.

Forgive me for being rightfully frustrated that one identifies oneself as a certain position despite going against many of its fundamentals.

Of course one need not agree completely with all of Marx's arguments, only his most vital and necessary arguments. For example, you previously had seemingly voiced that human nature is static and hardly changeable. This completely goes against Dialectical Materialism, the most necessary building block of Marxism. With the application of Dialectical Materialism, Marx concluded that human nature was not a static and scarcely changeable attribute of humanity that was determined by such things as genetics, but rather he concluded that human nature was a product of the material conditions that we find within our lives. Without Dialectical Materialism utilized in Marxist theory, Marxist theory goes from scientific and realistic to absurd and worthless idealism.

You initially called yourself a Marxist and now call yourself a Democratic Socialist! Democratic Socialists advocate for reform as opposed to revolution, the main cause for division between Marxists and Democratic Socialists. Marxists called themselves Communists as opposed to Socialists to distinguish themselves from Democratic Socialists that went under the title of Socialists as well. The title of Communist intended to clearly distinguish that the individuals who went under such a title would advocate for revolution as opposed to reform that accomplishes little. Democratic Socialists and Marxists are very different from each other and one should refrain from identifying oneself as the other.

Although I don't suppose you would care much, I assure you that I don't have a dictionary on hand so as to sprinkle my posts with fancy vernacular. I had scored a perfect 100 on my English Regents and had achieved a score of 780 out of 800 on the English section of the SAT. The English that I use here is the English that I typically use on any other important platform. And surely, if I added little to nothing to discussion, why bother responding? If what I had posted was of little worth and value then it clearly required no acknowledgment.

 

Ur looking wayyyyy too far into this man. Ur option is pretty simple: clinton

 

Well it's either her or trump and trump is a extremely unqualified so yea

Tbh he isn't even a good business man he inherited his fathers huge buisness and made it grow a little. He might have been richer today if he just sold his buisness and put all the money into a stock index

 

We are at the "tipping point" according to most sientist. And i said threaten not that he would nessecarily do the killing blow.
And no other country will do anything as long as the us does.

I think we all agree with your first point to a some exctent. I think its obvious that i should not identify myself as a libetarian, when i am a "socialist". But there's still no point.

you're right, nobody cares.

Marxism is a critical view of kapitalism. I think that in order to understand kapitalism, one has to listen to both sides, the rothschilds and the richard wolff's. Thats why i think i could identify myself as a marxist in this way.

The democratic socialist bernie sanders calls for a revolution. And did marx celebrate violence? No. I think that a democratic socialist can call himself a marxist. It might require some cherrypicking though.

 

U r exaggerating af

 

I apologize, but you cannot identify yourself as a Marxist unless you genuinely advocate for the positions central to Marxism. Just try calling yourself a Conservative to a Conservative and then tell him about how much you like tax-funded social programs for almost everything. He would laugh in your face for being so foolish so as to identify yourself so inaccurately.

“… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism" - Karl Marx
"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?" - Karl Marx
As you can see by these quotes, Marx most certainly did not advocate for a violent revolution, now did he? Stop living in delusion. Socialism shall enter the world the same way Capitalism has entered the world; with blood on the tip of every blade and a fresh corpse being made every moment. This is an unfortunate reality that is a result of the fact that those in power will not give up their power without conflict.

 

He thought violence was necessary, not that it itself is a good thing.

There's a profound difference between thinking violence is necessary and celebrating violence.

The real power will always lay with the governd. That power is rarely organised. But when it is, everything can be accomplished. What we face now, is a war, a war about controlling that power. If we, the people win, do we have to use force? No we do not.


And btw, does it matter what we call eachother, as long as we understand eachother? The policy positions is what we discuss after all. So lets use a conv if you want to discuss this further.

 

To threaten the existence of the human race would mean putting us in a position where the killing blow can be done. Keep in mind global warming is a slow change, and we can adapt to it. You could say global warming threatens the existence of some coastal cities (especially in less developed countries), but it in no way threatens our survival as a species, that's just fear mongering.

Couldn't agree more, good post.

 

Do you still rember what i said in my earlier post? I said in any decent form. But other than that, i think your right, there's a bit of fier mongering involved.

Btw, **** auto-correct...

 

Everyone vote for @chickenputty as prezz, @chickenputty for prez 2k16

 

Brownsville, Houston, New Orleanes, Mobile, Tallahassee, Tampa Bay, Miami, Fort Lauder-dale, Savannah, Charleston, Philidalphia, Washington D.C. New York City, Boston, San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Fransisico, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Honolulu, Hong Kong, Bejing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Singapore, Sydney, Perth, Adeleang, Banglidesh, Needles, Venice, London, Brussles, Lisbon, Barcelona, Odessa, Isanbul, St/ Petersburg, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Dakar, Accra, Tripoli, Jeddah, Kuait City, Mumbai, Calcutta, Bangkok, Ho Chi Men City, Rio de Janero, Lima, Paramaribo, Bueno Aries, and the countless other cities and towns under 200 feet above sea level.

If these cities fall beneath the waves...just where in the hell do you think they the 3 billion people will go? You dont think we will have a major world war that could kill over a billion people? No we wont wipe ourselves out, but unless we fix it, we will certainly be shooting ourselves in the throat. Donald J. Trump is telling people lies. You think Im some idiot who beleaves in the 97%? Dude, I am the 97% I have been loving weather since I was 2. I have hand drawn temperatures graphs taped up on the wall above my computer. Now that makes be so baiesed but i dont care. It will be my job to protect my community for the harful effects of both weather and global warming, and it is starting with not electing Donald Trump.

 

You seem to be under the impression that I don't think it's a problem (it is), and then you brought Donald Trump into it, which had nothing to do with what we were talking about. And a world war... and... what? We were arguing over how he worded his claim that it was a threat to our actual existence, and it turned out that because his wording was a bit confusing, I misunderstood what he meant, so we dropped it.
To answer that first question though, I'm pretty sure they're not gonna stand in their homes for years and just drown.

I would like to vote for her, except that she has almost no political experience and many of her ideas are crazy.

 

Think about it.. you think people will just pick up the pieces? No, people will be pretty furious, especially in countries that are not major polluters. What will all these people do for food? shelter? entertainment? To make matters worse, this 200 years down the line and the worlds population may grow exponentially. If we are fighting over oil, we certainly will fight over food water and shelter later on.