GOP candidates pledge to vote for the man they call a liar, con man and fraud — his name is #NeverTr - Polidicks

[QUOTE=adamsz;49869687]I'm only a nearly broke, cynical, college student, there's not much short of running for office myself, or using violence, that will change political corruption. [B]At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who wins.[/B] What matters is that you don't willingly sell your values for a sticker that says "I Voted".[/QUOTE] It matters quite a lot who wins. The policies we make here in the US, even just our domestic policy decisions, have huge implications for a huge number of people around the world. The leader of what's probably the most powerful empire in human history is no trivial matter.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49870047]Perhaps I was mistaken, but what I gathered was that your plan for achieving political reform is to vote for a third party candidate who will never even conceivably come anywhere near being elected. Which practically isn't going to accomplish anything at all because it's a vain effort in the current system.[/QUOTE] That is not my plan, I'm voting third party because I can't consciously vote for the shit candidates the Democrats and the GOP have put forward this election. While I think it's true that if the majority of voters did vote for third party it would force change, that is wildly optimistic to ever conceive of happening. I don't have a plan to get rid of this two-party system. I wish I did, but I'm not a politician or a lawyer or a constitutional scholar. I'm just a voter, but I know well enough that this two-party system clearly isn't working in favor for the voters anymore and the US desperately needs election and campaign reforms to allow a more diverse representation of the people in this country and their political beliefs.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49870136]That is not my plan, I'm voting third party because I can't consciously vote for the shit candidates the Democrats and the GOP have put forward this election. While I think it's true that if the majority of voters did vote for third party it would force change, that is wildly optimistic to ever conceive of happening. I don't have a plan to get rid of this two-party system. I wish I did, but I'm not a politician or a lawyer or a constitutional scholar. I'm just a voter, but I know well enough that this two-party system clearly isn't working in favor for the voters anymore and the US desperately needs election and campaign reforms to allow a more diverse representation of the people in this country and their political beliefs.[/QUOTE] It does. part of what's so frustrating about this situation is that the complaints people have are entirely valid it's just that either no one has any solutions or they have crazy solutions that don't make sense

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49870136] I don't have a plan to get rid of this two-party system. I wish I did, but I'm not a politician or a lawyer or a constitutional scholar. I'm just a voter, but I know well enough that this two-party system clearly isn't working in favor for the voters anymore and the US desperately needs election and campaign reforms to allow a more diverse representation of the people in this country and their political beliefs.[/QUOTE] America just needs a great person like Teddy to get the ball rolling.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49870163]It does. part of what's so frustrating about this situation is that the complaints people have are entirely valid it's just that either no one has any solutions or they have crazy solutions that don't make sense[/QUOTE] Those with crazy solutions I think are just in the same boat as me - the average voter with no real idea how to fix the process. I think the main issue stems from the fact that anyone who knows how to fix this mess are benefiting too much from it to want to change it, or are at least outnumbered by those who benefit from it.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;49867529]You're choosing to vote on principle. That's not a rational position, it's an emotional one. You aren't voting based on the expected outcome of your vote, but instead you're voting based on what you feel is right in your gut. I'm still not sure if I would vote Trump or Hillary, but my decision is strategic and based on expected outcome. Voting Trump for me, would be a high-risk gamble that Trump doesn't do too much damage in 4 years, that Congress and the people block him on the crazy shit, and that the Democratic Party realizes they fucked up, and unfucks themselves 4 years from now. Voting Hillary is a safer bet that things mostly continue to deteriorate at the current rate, that Hillary doesn't somehow castrate the growing progressive movement, and that Hillary doesn't significantly increase the rate of deterioration and doesn't create significantly higher barriers to progress. Neither one is an emotional vote based on 'principles'.[/QUOTE] Voting on principle shows the statisticians and politicians that there [I]are[/I] people who want what that candidate is campaigning for. It's also a good way to effectively "abstain" from the election while still making your opinions heard. Then again, tactical voting is a malignant growth caused by our awful voting system and I would cut off my two legs if it meant we'd get voting reform.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49870526]This is an unbelievable load of crap. No Iraq War? Saddam Hussein was a dictator guilty of not only invading another sovereign nation and ignoring peace negotiations but also of genocide. Removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do. You can talk all day about the current state of the region, and guess what, hindsight is 20/20, but you can't try and act like removing Saddam from power and attacking al-Qaeda and the Taliban wasn't the right thing to do. "No regression of American society" Well, that's entirely subjective, and you say that like it's a bad thing. Not to mention Bush got reelected so obviously somebody liked him.[/QUOTE] Why didn't we remove Assad then? Qaddaffi? Kim Jong Il?

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49870526]This is an unbelievable load of crap. No Iraq War? Saddam Hussein was a dictator guilty of not only invading another sovereign nation and ignoring peace negotiations but also of genocide. Removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do. You can talk all day about the current state of the region, and guess what, hindsight is 20/20, but you can't try and act like removing Saddam from power and attacking al-Qaeda and the Taliban wasn't the right thing to do. "No regression of American society" Well, that's entirely subjective, and you say that like it's a bad thing. Not to mention Bush got reelected so obviously somebody liked him.[/QUOTE] We invaded Iraq because [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-317805.html"]God "told George W. Bush to do so.[/URL]". He is a god-intoxicated sociopath who, is the perpetrator of by far the worst crime of this millennium. If we invaded nations strictly based on their human rights record, we would invade North Korea; we would have intervened in Darfur. We did not because "being a dictator" is not cause for U.S. invasion. We already punished Saddam for invading another sovereign nation. It was called Operation Desert Storm. George W. Bush just wanted to continue off big papa's little work. Disarming al-Qaeda and the Taliban is not mutually exclusive with invading Iraq. That is a false dichotomy.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49870555]I don't know enough about the history of Assad and Qaddaffi to give any sort of insightful response but it would have been impossible to remove Kim Jong Il without immense damage to South Korea and it's people. Which is the same reason why we aren't going to go anywhere near North Korea unless they utilize a weapon of mass destruction on another nation.[/QUOTE] Okay, so it's only okay to take out weak dictators, their war crimes are irrelevant.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49870604] Removing anyone from power in North Korea is unrealistic. If we try to invade North Korea, I promise you that sarin gas will be raining down on innocent civilians in South Korea. That war would probably double the amount of deaths caused by the North Korean dictatorship.[/QUOTE] Because a massive amount of people haven't died in these wars in the middle east? Or, even more logically, because SK's civilians can't be evaluated beyond the reach of NK's artillery? No, the reason NK exists is because of China, the reason no one stopped Russia's invasion was because of Russia. Might makes right.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49870604]Bush got congressional approval for military action in Iraq, it wasn't a unilateral action by President Bush.[/quote] And every Senator, House of Representative who has voted in favor of authorizing George Bush's war has become the laughing stock of contemporary politics. Everyone regrets it, and voting "yes" in the war has become a bipartisan attack tool, for either party. [quote]You're right, being a dictator is not a cause for invasion, but it is one of many justifications. At the time there existed intelligence pointing to the notion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.[/quote] During the lead-up to war in 2003, United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix said that Iraq made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting the "proactive" but not always "immediate" cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take "but months" to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks. The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441, but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence. If such evidence existed, the United State's allies would join America in holding Iraq accountable. In the United Nations Security Council, the U.S. stood alone. And in January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. On March 19, following God's orders, George W. Bush invaded Iraq. This was a decision that the Senate committee found that many of the administration's pre-war statements about Iraqi WMD were not supported by the underlying intelligence. It proved to be [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/02/george-bush-iraq-interview"]the biggest regret of George W. Bush's presidency.[/URL] Jeb Bush, also stated he "would not have entered Iraq." [quote]"I would not have gone into Iraq," he said.[/quote] As the Iraq war's chief-architect (GWB) regrets entering Iraq, I fail to see a rationale that could be sustained in justifying the Iraq war. [quote]Now obviously, no one here is a CIA official. I can't tell you whether or not there was a legitimate belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and we could all go back and forth about it for the next week. And people like to say we went to Iraq for the oil, and even if we did, what's the problem with that? We should be protecting our interests. China does it. Russia does it. Why shouldn't we?[/quote] Because the United States is not an authoritative regime like Russia and China. If you would like to lower America's standards to that of an oppressive regime, then be my guest. [quote]Following the attacks of 9/11, it was a reasonable to worry that a dictator guilty of genocide with WMDs and proven ties to terrorist organizations might supply them. Saddam didn't like Israel and he didn't like us, it was a fair concern. [/QUOTE] Sounds like present day Iran, excluding WMDs and genocide. I suppose you would support invasion too, even if the chief architect of the Iran war recanted it in the future.

[QUOTE]This is why I hate the #BernieOrBust movement. They would, against the express wishes of their leader Sanders, refuse to vote for Hilliary Clinton in protest for Sander's loss to her.[/QUOTE] People not voting for corporate America is fine.

Every time I think about McCain's "100 years in Iraq", all I hear is "100 years of Americans dying"

The choice is between socially backwards corporate puppets and socially center-left corporate puppets. I'd rather have the one that isn't racist, sexist, and anti-scientific. Due to our voting system, voting third party just leads to less representative election results. [editline]4th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FinalHunter;49870740]I'm going to tell you right now that our withdrawal from Iraq was our greatest failure as a country in the last two decades. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ukJlcpqEY[/media] All day people say "Oh we destabilized the middle east" and "Oh if we hadn't gone into Iraq then ISIS wouldn't exist." No, they're dead wrong. LEAVING destabilized the Middle East. George W. Bush said it in 2007 while anticipating and attempting to prevent a democrat from removing us from the Middle East. Look what happened. I won't media tag the video of McCain talking about 100 years in Iraq because I want people to focus on the video of Bush, but it is linked [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRAshmSdps"]here[/URL]. McCain wanted a situation like Japan or South Korea where our permanent presence creates stability without a cost of American life.[/QUOTE] We wouldn't have had to leave if we had never entered. The Iraq War was predicated on totally bullshit reasoning and anger about 9/11.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49870719]Every time I think about McCain's "100 years in Iraq", all I hear is "100 years of Americans dying"[/QUOTE] Because it isn't like the region would gain stability and most of the policing operations would be passed over to Iraq forces over time? We went there and a lot of Americans died because of it; leaving made those deaths largely meaningless. We should have never gone there in the first place, but once we did we shouldn't have up and left so it could turn into a prime candidate for the exact thing that happened with ISIS.

The idea that the US was responsible for Qaddaffi's removal is hilariously inaccurate and arrogant to claim.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49870740]All day people say "Oh we destabilized the middle east" and "Oh if we hadn't gone into Iraq then ISIS wouldn't exist." No, they're dead wrong. LEAVING destabilized the Middle East. George W. Bush said it in 2007 while anticipating and attempting to prevent a democrat from removing us from the Middle East. Look what happened..[/QUOTE] Iraq is an abomination that exists with no regard to the cultural and sectarian lines of the region. I say that it would have fallen into chaos no matter what happened in the similar way to Syria but worse. So many of the Middle Eastern states are unstable messes that need a strongman to keep out the religious fanatics but in might makes right societies its always going to get chaotic.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;49865611]They would, [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-on-why-he-wont-run-as-in-independent/"]against the express wishes of their leader Sanders[/URL], refuse to vote for Hilliary Clinton in protest for Sander's loss to her. [/QUOTE] Good. She's just as bad of a candidate as Trump. I'm hoping neither her OR Trump get put on the final ballot.