Presidential Candidates

[welding_keldeo]

So... what do you guys think of the two main presidential candidates currently running? (For the Republicans and Democrats).

Any ups and downs?

Or... crazy things going on with them? (COUGH COUGH DONALD TRUMP COUGH)


Honestly, I have no idea who to vote (if I could vote-I'm not old enough). But I feel as if the news reporters are SO BIASED against Hillary Clinton. Do you guys see that, too? They are always mentioning something bad about Trump, and occasionally something about Clinton. What do you think about that?

 

[Murkrow]

Not being in America I obviously can't tell what your media is like unless it's online media, but I have someone on facebook who is probably a Trump supporter (he has all but admitted it) and he's constantly going on about how the media is incredibly biased against Trump and hush-hushing anything had about Clinton.

Although, the bad things I've heard about Clinton are often exaggerations, whereas the bad things about Trump are basically quoting him word-for-word within context, so there's obviously one I'd prefer if I were American.

Spoiler: derail into UK politics

While people are often prone to thinking their own chose is the one the media is biased against, there are definitely times where the media is biased against someone. I'm not a big fan of Jeremy Corbyn but I can tell that the media is massively biased against him.

 

[welding_keldeo]

True, that makes sense. The media does seem to be hush-hushing anything bad about Clinton. I do honestly think though, that what Clinton does REALLY BAD is EVERYWHERE, and what Trump does that is moderately crazy/bad is EVERYWHERE. That makes sense, though with the media being biased against candidates. My dad was saying how they prefer candidates that are more Liberal, because that's just what the news likes.

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

I despise both, as I am an anarchist.

 

[welding_keldeo]

Yeah, I see what you mean. Everything has its ups and downs. With a government, you don't have as much freedom to do what you want to be successful. Without a government, you could do whatever, except there could still be dangers of things such as crazy people just randomly killing each other without order. So I see it as anarchy being a good thing, as long as everyone living in it is good.

 

[opaltiger]

I despise both, as I am an anarchist.

Okay. Why?

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

Okay. Why?

Why do they suck? Or why am I an anarchist?

 

[opaltiger]

Why do they suck? Or why am I an anarchist?

The latter. Feel free to answer both if you want though.

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

The latter. Feel free to answer both if you want though.

Let's see: There are so many types of government that have failed in the past (such as feudalism and communism, to name a couple), and what I honestly think we'd fare better without any centralized government whatsoever.

Also, the United States government has been spiraling downward for decades.

 

[opaltiger]

Let's see: There are so many types of government that have failed in the past (such as feudalism and communism, to name a couple), and what I honestly think we'd fare better without any centralized government whatsoever.

Also, the United States government has been spiraling downward for decades.

Here is a very basic list of things the government is responsible for:

• infrastructure
• education
• social welfare
• justice
• emergency services

How do you propose to address those without a government?

I don't disagree with some of your points. But saying "feudalism and communism failed, ergo government is bad" is not a good argument. It's like saying "Aristotle and Newton were wrong, ergo science is bad." There's no reason to think that those failed because government is bad. They failed because they were bad systems of government - and even then, you could argue that feudalism was a good system of government, at least from the point of view that it took centuries for it to be replaced with anything else! (And let's keep in mind that communism has never been put into practice on a proper, large-scale basis.)

Governments have many problems. Some of them are due to the system itself. Some of them are due to the people in the system. But they're pretty vital to all parts of life. That's why we put up with them. If you want to get rid of them, you better have a really good plan.

 

[welding_keldeo]

Here is a very basic list of things the government is responsible for:

• infrastructure
• education
• social welfare
• justice
• emergency services

That does make sense that the Government is responsible for all of that, etc.

But still, about the part with the governments such as Communism failing before, I think he's right. Okay. So MAYBE it was the people that were ruling at the time, but think about the Russians. War and Peace (or is that what the book was called?), or anyways, Animal Farm by George Orwell.

Those books are based on the idea of Totalitarianism, but when starting a new revolution, they just became like the people who were previously ruling the government. That government failed, and so maybe no government is good, but I would think that you would still need the basic systems.

Maybe like the Libertarian Party? Just a thought.

Either way, in the United States, all the parties AHEM REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS (sorry if I offend you)- just want to see their party as the next president. They care about what people think about them, they just don't take ACTION.

Oh yeah, and one question. How do you do the all black background for "spoiler" text?


EDIT:

Thanks, Stryke. And also, the debates are starting tonight. I can't watch it, school and etc.

 

[Stryke]

Oh yeah, and one question. How do you do the all black background for "spoiler" text?

You do this: [ispoiler]*put your text here*[/ispoiler]

 

[opaltiger]

That does make sense that the Government is responsible for all of that, etc.

But still, about the part with the governments such as Communism failing before, I think he's right. Okay. So MAYBE it was the people that were ruling at the time, but think about the Russians. War and Peace (or is that what the book was called?), or anyways, Animal Farm by George Orwell.

Those books are based on the idea of Totalitarianism, but when starting a new revolution, they just became like the people who were previously ruling the government. That government failed, and so maybe no government is good, but I would think that you would still need the basic systems.

Maybe like the Libertarian Party? Just a thought.

I think you're right. The French and the Russian revolutions both failed because of the people involved. It's all very well and good to have ideals; but if some people care about themselves more than about the ideals, it's all going to collapse.

And you know what? That's a problem with /every/ system of government, including anarchism. Unless you are literally advocating uncontrolled, every-person-for-themselves anarchy - and if you are, why on Earth do you want that - people need to be willing to step up. Someone needs to do all the work of creating a society, even if it's anarchistic.

And here's the problem: there will always be people who'd rather take advantage for personal gain. Let's be topical - think of Donald Trump last night. He bragged about being smart for taking advantage of loopholes to not pay taxes, and when accused of cheering on the housing crisis he said "that's business". In other words, he got rich off other people's suffering. And as long as that sort of person exists, we need to have a government to keep them in check - can you imagine what would happen if he just had free rein?

Utopian ideals like communism and anarchy just don't work in the real world - at least, not in this real world. They probably can and do work at a smaller level - say, dozens or maybe hundreds of people - but the sad truth is that it only takes one or two bad people to ruin it for everyone.

Libertarians, meanwhile, still need to answer the same question I posed at first. Who is going to do all the work of government if not government? Over and over again, handing over these services to the private sector - or, god forbid, expecting citizens to somehow do them themselves, out of the goodness of their hearts - has proven disastrous. My sense of people who call for small government is that they are mostly people upset that they aren't allowed to do certain things. To a first approximation, if a government doesn't allow you to do something, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

It would be great if we could all just get along and live in a utopian society. But that's not possible. We need the rules and regulations of government to prevent even worse chaos. Imagine a world without the FDA. Governments do a thousand invisible things for us that we don't even notice, and that's why we absolutely cannot dispense with them.

(War and Peace, by the way, is a book about the Napoleonic Wars and isn't super relevant here.)

Either way, in the United States, all the parties AHEM REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS (sorry if I offend you)- just want to see their party as the next president. They care about what people think about them, they just don't take ACTION.

Yes, of course. Two-party systems are clearly broken. You're being a little unfair, though - there are countless things Obama has tried to get done in his terms, only to be blocked over and over. He tried to take action, but the two-party system stopped him.

 

[welding_keldeo]

Yes, of course. Two-party systems are clearly broken. You're being a little unfair, though - there are countless things Obama has tried to get done in his terms, only to be blocked over and over. He tried to take action, but the two-party system stopped him.

Okay, maybe I was being a little unfair there. Yes, the two-party system does try to stop people, that I agree with. The thing is, though, he's a part of that two-party system. He still wants to see his party win in office, and doesn't want to risk another party trying to take control of the Presidency. What's ironic is even though the parties are ALL ABOUT WINNING and the other LOSING, they don't want to bring a minority party into this... it's too risky among their own power.

The French and the Russian revolutions both failed because of the people involved. It's all very well and good to have ideals; but if some people care about themselves more than about the ideals, it's all going to collapse.

I agree with this, but the nature of a person is too care about themselves more than the ideals. It's extremely hard to find a person that won't. Maybe that's why... I don't know, more people in the government would mean less power for each individual person to gain control of everything, yet harder to establish things such as laws. So how should we do this? It's a very complicated question. I mean, of course America will eventually fall, it's such a pity. But it will be either because of
1) Too many corrupt government officials/senators/representatives/president
2) Citizens rioting because of this
3) Military attacks

I think that the U.S. has a good government, but of course there are flaws. There are many corrupt government officials out there, the thing is that there are so many positions that it doesn't (hopefully) affect the system too much, yet the people such as the President will appoint people for cabinet positions that are just their friends, rather than someone that will actually know what they're doing. That's why I think that it would be smarter if the citizens elected cabinet members...then again, people are desperate enough to kill the President, VP, Speaker, and President Pro Tem. just to get their party in power. Well, maybe not all of them, but it's possible.

I just wish that we had a multi-party system- it allows more peoples' voices to be heard.

Libertarians, meanwhile, still need to answer the same question I posed at first. Who is going to do all the work of government if not government? Over and over again, handing over these services to the private sector - or, god forbid, expecting citizens to somehow do them themselves, out of the goodness of their hearts - has proven disastrous. My sense of people who call for small government is that they are mostly people upset that they aren't allowed to do certain things...

Imagine a world without the FDA. Governments do a thousand invisible things for us that we don't even notice, and that's why we absolutely cannot dispense with them.

Okay, I think you have a good point there. But doesn't the Libertarian Party (I'm too young to be affiliated with a party, so I can't really vote or anything or choose a party-I'm just giving one as an example) still do basic government purposes, they just give more individual freedom? I mean, that might be a bit of a balance...



And for the elections coming up, I did end up seeing last night's Presidential Debate. Honestly, I think it would be cool if a third party won. Just so that we could see the shocked looks on the faces of the Republicans and Democrats in our two-party system. I wish they would let Gary Johnson participate in the debates, but he doesn't have 15% according to polls, and of course it's the major parties making the rules.

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

Also contemplating whether Jill Stein or Vermin Supreme is a better protest vote.

 

[Flora]

Also contemplating whether Jill Stein or Vermin Supreme is a better protest vote.

Protest votes are super super risky, and honestly don't make sense to me; you're upset about the way things are, so you....purposely vote for someone who can't win? You're literally saying "the political stuff right now is awful, but instead of voting in people who would fix it, I'm voting for someone I know can't win to ~protest the system~"

I mean, maybe I'm misunderstanding, and maybe you actually want to bit for one/both of them! That's cool if that's what you really wanna do! But voting for someone as an act of protest rather than cause you actually support their platform is kinda....not good. It's basically like writing in Mickey Mouse cause you hate all the candidates; it does nothing to actually affect the political climate.

Cause here's the thing: the politicians in the election don't actually care who you vote for, they just see that you either did or did not vote for them specifically. They don't see protest votes and think "oh man we should change stuff because people are protest voting". If anything, they're probably just gonna assume you're someone who doesn't take voting seriously.

Tl;dr: protest voting is just....not helpful.

 

[welding_keldeo]

...here's the thing: the politicians in the election don't actually care who you vote for, they just see that you either did or did not vote for them specifically. They don't see protest votes and think "oh man we should change stuff because people are protest voting". If anything, they're probably just gonna assume you're someone who doesn't take voting seriously.

I agree, I totally accept protest voting. I understand that. But the thing is, politicians are right (for once-I know, right?) that you are practically throwing away your vote if you don't vote for the major parties. In order for a minor party to surge, you're going to need the majority of people voting to finally vote for them, or something will happen where people decide that they don't like the major parties anymore (or their candidates).

Also, protest voting is okay, but you need to at least know the candidates, and their ideas. You want them to match up with yours as much as possible.

Sometimes, it's basically choosing the lesser of the two evils, and that's pretty hard to do.

 

[opaltiger]

Okay, maybe I was being a little unfair there. Yes, the two-party system does try to stop people, that I agree with. The thing is, though, he's a part of that two-party system. He still wants to see his party win in office, and doesn't want to risk another party trying to take control of the Presidency. What's ironic is even though the parties are ALL ABOUT WINNING and the other LOSING, they don't want to bring a minority party into this... it's too risky among their own power.

No arguments here. But it's still better than nothing.

I agree with this, but the nature of a person is too care about themselves more than the ideals. It's extremely hard to find a person that won't. Maybe that's why... I don't know, more people in the government would mean less power for each individual person to gain control of everything, yet harder to establish things such as laws. So how should we do this?

This is very true. Other countries manage better, though - perhaps the solution is for America to stop viewing itself as such an exception. When you're in an election to become leader! of! the! FREE! WORLD! it's hard to keep things in perspective.

I think that the U.S. has a good government, but of course there are flaws. There are many corrupt government officials out there, the thing is that there are so many positions that it doesn't (hopefully) affect the system too much, yet the people such as the President will appoint people for cabinet positions that are just their friends, rather than someone that will actually know what they're doing.

Cabinet appointments being political does strike me as kind of silly. The good news is that the actual department in question is full of non-partisan civil servants who know what they're doing.

Okay, I think you have a good point there. But doesn't the Libertarian Party still do basic government purposes, they just give more individual freedom? I mean, that might be a bit of a balance...

The Libertarian party is also against government involvement in the economy. They want as free a market as possible. This is a terrible idea. Free markets are predicated on the idea that making money is always the correct choice. I would prefer to live in a world where the livelihood of people is valued more than the profits of corporations.

And for the elections coming up, I did end up seeing last night's Presidential Debate. Honestly, I think it would be cool if a third party won. Just so that we could see the shocked looks on the faces of the Republicans and Democrats in our two-party system. I wish they would let Gary Johnson participate in the debates, but he doesn't have 15% according to polls, and of course it's the major parties making the rules.

I don't disagree, but with all due respect - I expect your community is quite pro-Johnson? - I would encourage you to draw your own conclusions. Johnson is not the magical solution to this election. He is also a flawed candidate. (And, actually, the rules are set by a non-partisan commission.)

Also contemplating whether Jill Stein or Vermin Supreme is a better protest vote.

I am of two minds about protest votes. In some cases, they are powerful tools - if you truly think that the major candidates are both equally bad, then a protest vote can be a good idea. Particularly in European multi-party democracies, major parties can very easily be destroyed by growing too complacent and allowing a smaller, protest party to break through.

But I want you to think very carefully about two things. First, America is not a multi-party democracy. I suspect the current two-party system will change eventually; but I highly doubt it will have anything to do with a few people voting for a third party.

Second, do you truly think both candidates are equally bad? Imagine that 2000 repeats itself and you wake up the morning after the election to discover that all those people voting Jill Stein and Gary Johnson have thrown the election to Trump. Would you be okay with that?

You know what two things stood out for me after the EU referendum result in the UK? One, the immediate spike in racist and xenophobic violence. Two, the thousands of people saying that they'd only voted Leave as a protest vote - they never expected it to win. Do you think it will be any different this time? That Trump's supporters won't be emboldened by his victory?

Feel free to vote for whoever you like. Just be prepared to have that on your conscience.

 

[welding_keldeo]

I don't disagree, but with all due respect - I expect your community is quite pro-Johnson? - I would encourage you to draw your own conclusions. Johnson is not the magical solution to this election. He is also a flawed candidate. (And, actually, the rules are set by a non-partisan commission.)

Okay, that makes sense that the rules are set by a non-partisan commission. Makes it more fair. My community isn't exactly pro-Johnson as you may think. It's more like pro-Trump. YOU SEE TRUMP STICKERS EVERYWHERE. It's just that I sort of like bringing up the underdog in this sort of conversation.


And about protest voting, I do think that it does make sense to stand up for your beliefs in that manner. The only thing is that you should vote for them mostly if they match up for your beliefs.

And what about the Green Party? What are their major beliefs on Government issues?


Additionally, if you like poking fun at the presidential candidates, I saw this book at Barnes & Noble, and it's a fiction story about Donald Trump being our President. It's called something like this: The Day of the Donald. Trump Trumps America!!! It looks REALLY RIDICULOUS. But I read the summary, and it's sort of funny. He supposedly got rid of the National Deficit by suing the Catholic Church for property damage done by God. But honestly, I don't think he would really do that... or would he?

 

[Sandstone-Shadow]

Imagine that 2000 repeats itself and you wake up the morning after the election to discover that all those people voting Jill Stein and Gary Johnson have thrown the election to Trump.

It's just that I sort of like bringing up the underdog in this sort of conversation.

It's just that the underdog isn't likely to make much headway this late in the game. Like opal said, I fear that votes for all of those third parties are not going to count for much this time.