This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Gunt
31
« on: June 10, 2016, 05:22:06 PM »
Even though Trump is advocating for quite a lot of that crap. His only appeal is saying he won't go to war and will stop trades, which will somehow bring back all the jobs.
Even though, he's a hypocrite in that regard (Jobs). He does plenty of business in China. Though, I'd argue more jobs for America, the better. Making it more beneficial to stay in America, or make it too burdensome to leave.
32
« on: June 10, 2016, 05:12:42 PM »
I don't understand why people don't abstain from the vote. Go register, and if you don't agree with either of the choices, abstain.
People say abstaining is retarded, but it's far better alternative to voting for your polar opposite. At least if there's a majority of abstentions, it shows the parties that frankly, the public don't like either of them and need to get their act together.
Not voting is lazy, emotionally charged voting/spite-voting is retarded; Abstaining shows you are unhappy with the system, and want a new one.
I do not vote. I am not even registered to vote. I chose to never register because I disagree with the two-party system. I thought that was a pretty good option. My not-voting isn't out of laziness, but as a matter of opposition to the current system. If someone is registered to vote already, then I agree with abstaining.
Wouldn't making your voice heard be more effective if you voted Libertarian in the year they probably have the biggest chance to make an impact? Hearing what Das said about it was pretty powerful.
The problem is that I don't think the system actually works for the people, and I no longer follow American politics enough to make an educated assessment. It really is a non-issue as of this point since I no longer reside in the US, but when I gain citizenship here, I will have to vote.
You see the American system as bad but you think it's better in Belgium?
It has more party options than the American system. But again, I don't follow Belgian politics either, so making an assessment of better or worse would be baseless. Voting is mandatory in Belgium, so when I become a citizen, I will have to participate. When that time nears, I will become more well versed in the political system here. At that point, I will give you my assessment, so...give or take 5 years.
Most Americans seem to have this romanticized view of democracy in Europe, that's why I asked.
There's really only 2 parties that are worth voting for in most every country. Not sure about Belgium because politicos here is a shitshow.
Things are a bit different over here. It is illegal to make donations to political campaigns and stuff in Belgium, which is totes different from the US. I'm not sure how it works elsewhere, so I don't know much more about thesystem than that.
It's actually still possible to donate to political parties. It's just restricted to a certain amount for private natural persons and companies to avoid massive contributions from certain actors looking to "buy" politicians' support if they get elected. I think it's too strict the way it is now, but the country does not really have a culture of people donating to politics (most prefer to just become a member of a party and pay membership fees) so I doubt much would change if this were changed. Still, it's a pretty good safeguard against politics being too influenced by money.
Something must not be working than. lol
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019
http://occupydemocrats.com/2015/12/31/new-princeton-study-confirms-u-s-is-no-longer-a-democracy-is-now-an-oligarchy/
But we were talking about Belgian politics, not American ones.
Is that so? My mistake.
33
« on: June 10, 2016, 05:10:49 PM »
"My candidate didn't win and I don't like Hillary, so I'm gonna vote for Trump for the lulz". OR, it could be out of principle and her shitty policies. She voted for Iraq (Which will cost $6 trillion when it's all said and done) She is pro-intervention (What could go wrong, it's not like whenever there's a power vacuum things go to shit) She is paid millions by corporations and media (Not so ironically against money in politics) She is paid by banks (Again, not so ironically "against" them) I think you get it, she has a lot of baggage. This guy sums it up. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/sep/02/11-examples-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-hol/http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/05/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-revisionist-history-tpp/http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/25/barack-obama/clinton-has-changed-on-nafta/ "I won't support fracking, death penalty, private prisons, Wall St. bailouts, no bank breakup, endless wars, spying, torture, internet censorship, border fences, patriot act, TARP, TPP, TTIP, NAFTA, Panama, or any other crappy trade agreement. It's hard to support a system that does NOT represent it's citizens. Fuck the Democrats. They are the new Republicans."
34
« on: June 10, 2016, 04:56:08 PM »
I don't understand why people don't abstain from the vote. Go register, and if you don't agree with either of the choices, abstain.
People say abstaining is retarded, but it's far better alternative to voting for your polar opposite. At least if there's a majority of abstentions, it shows the parties that frankly, the public don't like either of them and need to get their act together.
Not voting is lazy, emotionally charged voting/spite-voting is retarded; Abstaining shows you are unhappy with the system, and want a new one.
I do not vote. I am not even registered to vote. I chose to never register because I disagree with the two-party system. I thought that was a pretty good option. My not-voting isn't out of laziness, but as a matter of opposition to the current system. If someone is registered to vote already, then I agree with abstaining.
Wouldn't making your voice heard be more effective if you voted Libertarian in the year they probably have the biggest chance to make an impact? Hearing what Das said about it was pretty powerful.
The problem is that I don't think the system actually works for the people, and I no longer follow American politics enough to make an educated assessment. It really is a non-issue as of this point since I no longer reside in the US, but when I gain citizenship here, I will have to vote.
You see the American system as bad but you think it's better in Belgium?
It has more party options than the American system. But again, I don't follow Belgian politics either, so making an assessment of better or worse would be baseless. Voting is mandatory in Belgium, so when I become a citizen, I will have to participate. When that time nears, I will become more well versed in the political system here. At that point, I will give you my assessment, so...give or take 5 years.
Most Americans seem to have this romanticized view of democracy in Europe, that's why I asked.
There's really only 2 parties that are worth voting for in most every country. Not sure about Belgium because politicos here is a shitshow.
Things are a bit different over here. It is illegal to make donations to political campaigns and stuff in Belgium, which is totes different from the US. I'm not sure how it works elsewhere, so I don't know much more about thesystem than that.
It's actually still possible to donate to political parties. It's just restricted to a certain amount for private natural persons and companies to avoid massive contributions from certain actors looking to "buy" politicians' support if they get elected. I think it's too strict the way it is now, but the country does not really have a culture of people donating to politics (most prefer to just become a member of a party and pay membership fees) so I doubt much would change if this were changed. Still, it's a pretty good safeguard against politics being too influenced by money.
Something must not be working than. lol https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Careerhttps://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019http://occupydemocrats.com/2015/12/31/new-princeton-study-confirms-u-s-is-no-longer-a-democracy-is-now-an-oligarchy/
35
« on: June 10, 2016, 04:47:55 PM »
Both candidates are trash. I don't see how voting out of spite is a bad mentality. I, personally think the 'lesser of two evils' is something this country should be moving away from, which seems to be the case. One candidate flips on every shit trade deal they initially supported, then green energy, and money in politics (All the while receiving millions) While the other is a con artist and has no specific policies, just vague shit.
36
« on: June 10, 2016, 04:41:24 PM »
I'd take that shit in a heartbeat.
37
« on: June 10, 2016, 04:38:26 PM »
Have some self control? If they're not going after you, than don't go after them. Of course, I make an exception to assholes who try to treat everyone like shit.
38
« on: June 09, 2016, 02:29:57 PM »
Is that a thing?
it's called veganism
are you fucking 8 years old
though tbf, mayonnaise is not vegan, so maybe you were CONFUSED
"mayonnaise is not vegan" I'm glad that dawned on you, edgy boy.
39
« on: June 09, 2016, 02:23:16 PM »
That was enjoyable.
Imma make a sandwich, want one Verb?
He can only eat tomato and mayo sammich.
Is that a thing?
40
« on: June 09, 2016, 02:13:55 PM »
So to say that you're an Egalitarian (Equality for ALL), then say, I'm a feminist (A group that advocates for one group) is contradictory. I didn't bother to read through your entire argument with Verb because I'm feeling pretty lazy, but I think I get the gist of why he's upset with you. Feminism is simply the belief that women should be treated equally to men, which falls under the definition of egalitarianism; that being the belief that everyone should be equal. Just because you don't personally identify with the feminist cause, doesn't mean that you aren't one. What you're arguing is essentially the same as a biologist claiming that they aren't a scientist.
All I'm saying is that you can't be both. In short, feminism is for one group, ega is for all groups. That simple. Feminism is the advocacy for women, Ega is advocacy for all. So I disagree when people say they are the same thing or twist it in their head where they need to be a feminist. You don't need to be a part of A or B group, when C group already includes components from both groups A/B. It's redundant. If anything, people are trying to keep a dead horse alive in the West. But that's just me, if you disagree. That's cool, I was just being a dickhead before and I'd rather not have long back and forth. So yea..peace.
41
« on: June 08, 2016, 09:07:32 PM »
Is your hunger the cause of your edge?
Is your stupidity the cause of your retardation?
If I'm retarded, than I don't know what you are. Oh wait, I know. "The God of Everything". You edgy, little bitch. lol. You didn't disappoint, nice talk. I had fun, I hope you did. See ya.
42
« on: June 08, 2016, 09:02:53 PM »
Because that group is specifically for women, not all. BREAD IS NOT SANDWICH
THEREFORE, SANDWICH DOESN'T HAVE BREAD
Fuck you.
Is your hunger the cause of your edge?
43
« on: June 08, 2016, 09:00:47 PM »
Feminism or Masculism cannot support egalitarianism alone. And when the fuck did I say otherwise?
Oh yeah, never.
So to say that you're an Egalitarian (Equality for ALL), then say, I'm a feminist (A group that advocates for one group) is contradictory.
No, it isn't. There's nothing about supporting women's rights that contradicts supporting the rights of everybody.
Because that group is specifically for women, not all. How you can't see that is beyond me. If feminism actually covered everybody and didn't takeaway or didn't exclude anyone, then Egalitarianism wouldn't be a thing.
44
« on: June 08, 2016, 08:54:09 PM »
If you're an egalitarian, than saying you're a feminist and masculist is both pointless and redundant.
Just because you consider it pointless and redundant doesn't make it any less true.
Feminism or Masculism cannot support egalitarianism alone. If you're already a Egalitarian, than you've already covered the bases. I'll remind you of the definitions of both. Feminism - the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Masculism - is a movement that advocates for the rights, equality and dignity of the male sex in an egalitarian framework. So to say that you're an Egalitarian (Equality for ALL), then say, I'm a feminist (A group that advocates for one group) is contradictory.
45
« on: June 08, 2016, 08:49:19 PM »
I've shown you the definitions The definitions only helped my point. There were no contradictions whatsoever.
Feminism is for women, not all.
Doesn't matter.
Your tears are fucking delicious.
No, details do matter, you're an idiot. What's with you 'n tears? The depression talking?
46
« on: June 08, 2016, 08:47:28 PM »
And that when you combine feminism and masculism, you GET egalitarianism?
If you're an egalitarian, than saying you're a feminist and masculist is both pointless and redundant. Because you've already covered all the bases. If you only say, "I'm an egalitarian and feminist!" (An example, my literal friend). Choose advocacy for all or advocacy for women. Egalitariansim isn't covered by feminism or masculism alone.
47
« on: June 08, 2016, 08:41:48 PM »
That's the point, it covers all the bases. You can't be an egalitarian if you don't believe in equality for all, period. Exactly.
Which is why saying you're a part of Feminism, then saying Egalitarianism is retarded.
Which is it advocacy for woman or all?
"When in the FUCK did I ever say egalitarianism as retarded? Ever?"
A little too literal, are we? "but if you claim to be an egalitarian, that means you are also a feminist. Period."I've shown you the definitions, and pointed out the contradictions for you in your reasoning. I guess you can't fix stupid.
"All.
Which includes women."
CORRECT! "Which means you're a feminist."
Feminism is for women, not all. ERRR! Dumbass.
48
« on: June 08, 2016, 08:32:47 PM »
I don't think you understand my depressed edge-lord.
Feminism is specifically for WOMEN, not everyone. Unlike, Egalitarianism.
You said that in order to be an Egalitarian you have to be a Feminist, that doesn't make sense if you're advocating for one group of people. You doublethinking, dunce.
egalitarianism is a broad viewpoint
Hey, hey dumbass. That's the point, it covers all the bases. You can't be an egalitarian if you don't believe in equality for all, period. That's it, you're doing these mental gymnastics to include these groups when they only focus on "X" group, not all groups. Which is why saying you're a part of Feminism, then saying Egalitarianism is retarded. Two, different groups. One, includes all, the other includes/is for women. The double think is real. Which is it advocacy for woman or all? Of course, this shit gets all turned around in your head and is the same.
49
« on: June 08, 2016, 08:21:06 PM »
egalitarian - of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Guess what?
Women are people. Fucking retard.
I don't think you understand my depressed edge-lord. Feminism is specifically for WOMEN, not everyone. Unlike, Egalitarianism. You said that in order to be an Egalitarian you have to be a Feminist, that doesn't make sense if you're advocating for one group of people. You doublethinking, dunce. Egalitarianism covers all the bases. So for your dumbass to espouse, "I'm a feminist, meninist, treeist too!" Doesn't make the slightest sense if you're already under a group that quite literally covers EVERYONE.
50
« on: June 08, 2016, 08:15:16 PM »
What the hell, i thought she was already banned from YouTube.
She was unbanned literally thirty minutes after the fact.
You shouldn't. Egalitarianism is much better.
I already am an egalitarian. In order to be an egalitarian, you must be a feminist.
That some crazy mental gymnastics you go through. egalitarian - of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Feminism - the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. An egalitarian is equality for all. Feminism is specifically for women.
51
« on: June 08, 2016, 05:34:45 PM »
Well, Desert Storm is what convinced Osama Bin Laden that the US were invaders/desecrate of holy land. And had a degree in civil engineering. His first attempt at the foundation was ruined, so aimed higher. Not that hard to believe a person with an engineering background could pull it off. It is true that steel beams do not melt by jet fuel, however, they do bend and their internal structure is compromised.
52
« on: June 08, 2016, 05:11:09 PM »
Hillary Clinton's policies are nothing to brag about. She was for TPP, then against. Voted for the Iraq war which will cost the US $6 Trillion dollars. She's pro-intervention. Her support of Fracking, then not supporting it, then saying, "We'll find ways to be safe about". She flipflops constantly on trade deals.
This guy sums it up pretty well, "I won't support fracking, death penalty, private prisons, Wall St. bailouts, no bank breakup, endless wars, spying, torture, internet censorship, border fences, patriot act, TARP, TPP, TTIP, NAFTA, Panama, or any other crappy trade agreement. It's hard to support a system that does NOT represent it's citizens. Fuck the Democrats. They are the new Republicans."
Finally, her campaign literally called out to BUSH donors because they wanted to convince them she represents them more than Trump.
53
« on: June 08, 2016, 04:58:50 PM »
Besides the people here that stroke off crooked Shillary and Orangutan Trump. You do realize that in a general election match up Hillary ties with Trump or loses by two points. Whereas Sanders beats Trump by 10 points, in some polls 15 points...(He could make the case to super-delegates that he's a safer bet) Also, considering Hillary Clinton's fall in line message (condescending) to Bernie Supporters, and how shutout Independents are in this country. Trump is currently courting both by trying to appeal to our disenfranchisement.
Also when did the White vote stop being important? It seems like this election is flipped on it's head, every year the only thing people care about are black/white voters, now it's almost an insult for someone to say they have primarily white voters.
Not to mention the possibility of indictment, Nixon was screwed for erasing 18 mins of tape, Hillary has deleted 30,000 "personal emails" (That isn't her call to make, the investigation into her email would've made the distinction.)
54
« on: June 08, 2016, 06:17:38 AM »
You know Feminist have nothing left to fight for in the West when they bitch about 3D models...
|
Show Posts