Why vote?

Kurosaki

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Lately I've been asking myself this question. Why do people still vote even though politics is dirty? I don't vote because I see no point in it and politicians are too dishonest for me . This is not saying that I don't care about things and I do want things to work . I just see things are always the same whether we vote or not.
 

Ted_MxM

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
I think the last presidential election is glaring evidence that candidates are actually different. Maybe many in the past weren't, but at the very least, HRC would have kept the US pretty much the same. Maybe a 0.0000000001% increase of tax on the wealthy and a 0.0000000001% increase to minimum wage. But basically the same.

The problem is that people who still have all that hope or whatever vote on feelings and conscience and tell others to. Objectively, that's kinda silly considering how the US voting system is constructed to not be a real democracy. Vote the Electoral College. Until we can abolish it, no, it doesn't matter what the majority of people want, and yeah, I agree thematically.

The EC is the evil system we have in place, so you gotta play that the EC Map game, not feelz or which candidate inspires you. Vote for the one has the greatest chance of beating whoever you're most scared of in the Electoral College.
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
Voting strategically is a double-edged sword. What if all the people voting strategically had instead voted for the candidate they really wanted, and that guy actually won? Even if he loses, the numbers send a message to pollsters that your preferred candidate is no joke. That's how the Green Party in Canada became a serious thing; they started with one seat and never gave up, and kept on accumulating a little more of the vote each time.

If there exists a candidate or party that you believe can do a good job, or even a halfway competent job, even if they are not perfect, then you should vote for that person/party. If after examining the options available you have confidence in none of them, then you may as well not vote. Sometimes there just aren't any good options, and it's a matter of the lesser evil. But you must also understand that by not voting you are simply saying the decision should be made by other people instead of you. That's fine, maybe you just aren't willing to accept the responsibility, because you aren't informed enough. Presumably these other people are better informed, or perhaps they are just more ideologically possessed. As the old saying goes, if you want to stay out of politics, you will just end up being ruled by your inferiors.

Since reaching legal age, I have voted in almost every federal election (except one), and in most provincial elections (I missed a few). The one federal case where I didn't vote, in 2006 (Stephen Harper def. Stephane Dion), the reason was because I just couldn't decide between the available candidates at the time, and I wasn't all that well informed, so I just took a pass. Since then I had voted straight Liberal, mainly because of their environmental policy, until around 2017 when I realized how corrupt the Liberal party really is, and so in the most recent election I voted for Mad Max Bernier (along with almost nobody else lol). Bernier spoke to issues I cared about, and so I have a clean conscience, even though he fell flat (which was, I guess, a message to me that he was never viable -- or else that his supporters were all strategically voting Conservative to get rid of Trudeau). Anyways, even though Trudeau is still in power, he took a huge hit from 2015's numbers, which I hope sent a message. I kind of compare it to Obama vs. Romney in 2012 (and Trudeau's Conservative opponent was just as weak and corporate-bought as Romney).

The funny thing about voting is that you think it doesn't matter until suddenly it does. The two big upsets of 2016 (Trump and Brexit) are evidence of what a difference voting can make. You just have to be a bit savvy and don't believe a word of what any established party tells you; political parties are no different from any other corporation, and will always lie to you to get what they want. Look instead at individual people, what constraints they are under, who holds the money, how they act off-camera, etc.

In the days of Genghis Khan, Mongol Khans came to power by holding a ceremony called the kuriltai, where an aspiring Khan would host a feast and invite every prominent family to attend. Those who supported his claim to be Khan would show up, and those who did not recognize him as Khan would stay home. You could therefore assess the strength of a Khan's mandate by how big his kuriltai was, and therefore how many families of warriors he could count on to follow him into battle. When Genghis Khan rose to power, there was another warlord who held a competing kuriltai at the same time as his. You might think of this as something like a primitive election: Go to one kuriltai, or the other, or neither. My point is, staying home can also be a form of vote, as long as you're doing it for the right reasons (nihilistic despair is not a good reason), and you take the decision seriously. The Mongol families who declared for no warlord at all probably got massacred by one or the other (although I've read that Genghis was pretty good to those who surrendered -- the skull piles were Tamerlane's doing).
 

Lo DeBale

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
I've always seen voting as more a means of granting the illusion of choice to the masses to keep them nice and docile rather than it being a means for the masses to actually choose for a few reasons. Firstly and most prominently among those being the fact that the vast majority of voters are just morons who couldn't walk and chew bubblegum. And when you take a look at the insipid nonsense and blatent fearmongering that is drip fed to us through the news media and the utterly shameful state of the american education system at every level I challenge you to look me in the eye and tell me this isn't by design. A stupid herd is easy to lead because they dont realize they're being lead. They dont question anything unless prompted to and they take to programming and propaganda like fish to water. So picture this. You spend your time educating yourself on politics. Brushing up on relevant issues at hand in the current arena and meticulously weighing the pros and cons of each candidate or policy to really make your vote count. Then you get outvoted by a parade of misinformed sheep who wouldn't know a con if it slapped them in the mouth with its dick. Kinda makes the whole process seem like a waste of time doesn't it? That's the status quo and it's not changing through peaceful voting and diplomacy as far as I can see.

Then there is the little matter of lobbying. See, it's not really against the rules to keep pushing for the same legislation over and over again. Not really. It's how shit like net neutrality got shut down. You may think the people have the power to vote out shitty policies or choose which ones to keep. And they very well might. Once. Twice. Maybe even thrice if they're really determined. But if the powers that be really want something to happen, itll happen and no amount of kicking and screaming by the unwashed masses with stop it. Eventually, those shitty policies that you thought had been crushed will sneak in through some new bill, under some new name and boom. All your efforts, all the efforts of the voting masses who stood against that are for shit. But I know what you're thinking. "You can just push for a veto. Call your congressman. Make your voice heard." Baby, that is a futile tug of war with no end. And while folks are busy trying to get one shitty policy taken down, five more can just creep in while they're destracted.

And of course there's the matter of this two party dictatorship that rules America with an iron fist. Both the left and the right are so utterly corrupt that you would think we'd have some legitimate third party powers at play. That we might have had a Ron Paul secure the executive branch by now or something. At least, if we really did have a choice in the matter that is. But that's not, nor do I ever think that'll be the case. Politicians, at least the ones that win, are always bought and paid for partisans. They're either blue or red and they dont serve the common people but the elites who pay for their little vices and luxuries. Grass roots movements, than, become an utter joke when Saudis can prop up a candidate with their billions. And third party candidates who actually wanna change shit cant accomplish a damn thing when they're constantly being edged out by dems and Republicans. Neither the right, nor the left will give up their power or the gravy train without a fight after all.

All in all, it's a shit show. America is kinda fucked. But at least we're not Europe. I can watch my porn without paying for a license ya fog breathers. Fite me!!!
 

MacCloud

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
East Coast USA
The thing is as bad as it is if you don't vote it can get worse. America is far from perfect, but it has made great strides and as long as people try, even just a few it can get better. trump is the result of not caring. Dead babies on the Southern border, withholding support of disaster victims in Puerto Rico, abandoning our allies the Kurds to be murdered by the Turks.. Letting Russia decide out foreign policy, trying to provoke a war with Iran, the list is endless of what a totally immoral piece of shit can do if no one cares. he does this is the name of Americans. So yes voting is important and yes we will be disappointed because politicians are often inept or simply corrupt. The thing is not voting leads to a tyrant and than you have no rights. Not even the illusion of them.

It seems getting big money and lobbyist out of the picture should be an easy fix but it is not going to happen unless we the people band together. I vote not because I think there is pie in the sky. I vote because the alternative is anarchy or a dictator.
 

Esoterica

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
I think the issue with people over the past few years has been so much irritation that they have thrown their hands up and just let the world of politics go to shit because they feel helpless with the state of the world. I know that was part of my issue. I also felt like politics had become partly a joke, and I did not want to be involved in that joke. I looked for excuses not to be involved, and a big one I used was my health. I have a benign brain tumor so seizures make it hard for me to be out and about. But the law just changed in my state where you can vote by Absentee ballot for any reason if you so choose so as my sisters and friends have told me, I don't have a reason to sit it out anymore. So I plan to start voting again. I don't really have a reason not to anymore.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
I'm really conflicted over the thing

The idealist in me thinks that EVERYONE should vote and they should weigh the pros and cons of EVERY candidate and how they stand on the issues, then vote for someone based on careful deliberation of that.

However that's not how our system is set up and politics aren't so pure, sincere, or transparent as that. I believe there is an "illuminati" -- not literal lizard people who sacrifice children to Moloch, but an international network of ultra-wealthy families. They have a great deal of influence over both the political world and corporate world. They come from the corporate world, but they require the cooperation of government; because they're international, they need the cooperation of multiple governments. That would mean that anyone who gets into the running to be head of state of a country with a bank that's part of this network is sort of pre-approved that their goals won't significantly disrupt any long-term "illuminati" plans. Personally, I assume if anyone were going to disrupt the long-term plans of the "illuminati" they wouldn't be in the running

Secondly, I wouldn't be surprised if whoever is elected gets some kind of thing like "The Talk" which could basically be like, "There are some things you're not going to do, and if we tell you to do something, you will do it and it originated in official channels. If you do not respect this, or allude to anything spoken of here, there will be consequences" This is, of course, complete and utter conjecture but the theory behind JFK's assassination was that he conspired to stop obeying his "handlers" and they couldn't have that. I can't rule it out, though, so I assume while the person is in office, they will be obeying others' directives at the top level

Do I think my vote counts? Yes and no. I think votes are more like suggestions. This is pretty obvious in the fact we have an electoral college and have no idea who the fuck these people are or what their qualifications and associations are. I'm not anti-electoral college because when there are literally people who vote because they think the candidate's attractive, quaint, friendly, they'd be cool to hAvE a BeEr WiTh, because of their religion, genital configuration, who they have sex with, or their skin color and they can't articulate 3 things about the person's policies; there are people with a sub-90 IQ who are theoretically voting; there are people who don't give a fuck, are out of the loop, and have been voting the same straight ticket for 40+ years; and there's the issue of population density giving power to people of people of one regional culture over another. It just needs to be more transparent who these people in the EC are and how they are chosen. At the end of the day, it's possible that if the votes do not support the high level directives, they could be tampered with and there is no way to prove, as an individual, that the vote counts are what they are reported to be

Overall, I think people need to wake up to the fact voting isn't what their civics class made it out to be. Voting is kind of like the prisoner's dilemma, where we can vote for who we, individually, and genuinely want to lead us, but the people voting for the opponent won't likewise splinter because they're afraid of the same thing, so their candidate will win; however, if you vote strategically to keep out the one you don't want, your candidate has a better chance of winning but it perpetuates the same 2 party system that got everyone in this situation in the first place. The 2 party system benefits the "illuminati" because it reduces variability and the choice is whether you want to get to the conclusion slower (republicans) or more quickly (democrats). The conclusion, being, (put on your tinfoil hat k) a borderless authoritarian society where people are treated as economic units, everyone speaks the same language, uses the same currency, and corporate pop culture has replaced all cultures of anywhere that has an economy (because language, currency, and culture are barriers to no-holds-barred trade). The alternative is global rebellion (maybe not instantaneously or all at the same time everywhere) leading to a very dark period of instability, famine, starvation, collapse, while the current system is dismantled, people waffle for a bit and try to figure things out, and then new civilizations form and the cycle starts again.

tl;dr: Even if that's a total conspiracy theory and the reason government is so fucked up is because it's just dysfunctional individuals and not due to any Machiavellian element of 6D lizard-chess, and voting doesn't achieve its noble goals because of collective incompetence, if you take all that into consideration it's better to vote strategically because it's just the world we live in and pretending otherwise is setting yourself up for disappointment and frustration..
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
I pointed out Trump and Brexit in my previous post because those are two instances where by all appearances, the people voted "incorrectly", from the perspective of the globalist establishment you described (also known as the Party of Davos, to quote Steve Bannon). The result was years of campaigning by corporate media to try to get those two incorrect results reversed. In so doing, they ended up revealing themselves to the world. Before 2016 I never would have believed in such a thing as the deep state in the USA, or the Party of Davos globally (or the imperialist agenda of the EU). Their power was well hidden, but the more Trump and the Brexiteers provoked them, the more their existence became clear, through the reactions of the corporate media.

2016 me: "CNN is fake news? Come on, that's crazy talk! They're professional journalists, for gods sake"
*The Covington story happens*
2020 me: "CNN said some stuff. Hehe, that's funny... I'll just assume the opposite is true"

So when you say that anyone intending to oppose the illuminati would not be running, I think Trump is an obvious counterexample to that. Unless you think he's playing their game. I don't. If he was playing their game, the media would be treating him the way they treat ordinary corporate republicans, not like Orange Hitler.

I think the power of the globalist elite is an illusion they want to project, as a means of intimidating ideological opponents. They are as malleable as any other loose collection of people, because like every organization, they are made up of individual people who are open to persuasion and always reconsidering their strategic options as they play the game of life. This is why nobody has assassinated Trump yet: Those who would wish to orchestrate such a thing know that they wouldn't get away with it. They don't really have that much power.

Consider this: If Trump was following someone else's orders, the USA would already be at war with Syria or Iran or both. Everyone in the establishment seemed to be trying to provoke a war, but a war didn't happen. That seems to me like a win for humanity.

I think The Talk is more like what Snowden said on JRE: There are people who spent their entire careers in intelligence agencies and have gotten very good at delivering presentations to new presidents that are very alarming and convincing. They have an information asymmetry advantage when they are briefing the newly elected leader about state secrets, and most any politician is going to be inclined to just agree with whatever these guys are asking for, since they would know the geopolitical situation better than anyone else. I don't think it needs to involve intimidation or anything like that. It's more a question of how much a newly elected politician wants to assert his authority over the established bureaucrats, when there's a question of national security on the line if they make the wrong call. It must be a very stressful position to be in, for even the best of us, let alone some know-nothing politician.

I didn't want to mention the Electoral College earlier, because it's not really my business as a non-American, but I should point out that the purpose is to prevent cities from dominating every election by virtue of sheer population density. If a person could win by appealing only to cities, at the expense of everyone else, that would not be a very fair system at all. In Canada we do things in the British style, where you elect an MP for your regional riding, who is usually affiliated with a party, and whichever party wins the most seats in Parliament forms government, and their leader becomes Prime Minister. It's somewhat similar to the Electoral College, but it combines the Legislative and Executive branches into one. It's an open philosophical question whether that's better or worse than the American system. But the point is that representation from every region of the country needs to be preserved if you want to avoid particular regions getting screwed over for lack of clout. This became a big thing in Canada's election last year, where the Liberal Party won re-election, despite the prairie provinces Alberta and Saskatchewan having voted 90% Conservative. They did not take these results well at all, because it turns out that because of population distribution, about 2/3 of the seats in Canada's parliament are located across two provinces: Ontario and Quebec, meaning a savvy politician could win a majority government simply by pandering to that side of the map only, as westerners have accused the Liberal Party of doing.

Funny you should mention the prisoner's dilemma. The source of that dilemma is a paradox in the evolution of morality: A dishonest individual will always outperform an altruistic individual, but a group made of altruistic people will run rings around a group full of dishonest people. In fact, a group made entirely of dishonest people will fall apart completely. Politics is something of a balancing act to see how many parasites a group can tolerate before it loses the group competition. Voting strategically is more or less a choice between a desire to reward the individuals with the best qualities, at the expense of group cohesion, versus supporting the group's success, despite the presence of bad actors within it.


I'm going to stray off-topic a bit with this final point:

a borderless authoritarian society where people are treated as economic units, everyone speaks the same language, uses the same currency, and corporate pop culture has replaced all cultures of anywhere that has an economy
I believe the Bible talks about this in two places: near the beginning, with the Tower of Babel, and at the end, with the Mark of the Beast. It can also be summed up by Princess Leia's line: "The tighter you grasp, the more systems will slip through your fingers".

There's a video by Jonathan Pageau from a few months ago where he talks about the symbolism of the number 666 (no, that's not a link to the Black Sabbath song). 666 is used to represent the sum total of what can be accounted for by human rationality. This is contrasted with 777, the number of perfection. The missing difference between the extent of rational understanding and actual perfection is where the cracks always appear that will break apart every attempt at this sort of global hegemony. History would suggest that the result of such a collapse would be a dark age period--the end of the Age--where all the parasitic individuals are burned out of every group as a result of a reversion to basic survival conditions, and then every group can slowly reform into something stronger, through the unfettered cooperation of good people in the aftermath of the collapse.

I think before such a global hegemony appears, you will see smaller scale collapses, such as the breakup of the EU. There is also the possibility that the fallout from this coronavirus could throw a massive wrench into global trade, as China's factories drop in productivity, and multinationals pull their business out of China. The result would be some short term economic pain worldwide, eventually leading, hopefully, to a more sustainable system of trade in the long term, as the world stops putting its eggs in sketchy knock-off baskets like China. So my point is, don't let them black-pill you. There is always a way for nature and the will of the people to correct for the ambitions of the world's oligarchs, even if sometimes the correction doesn't take place until after a few tens of millions of eggs have been broken in pursuit of their phantom omelettes.
 

MacCloud

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
East Coast USA
I really hate all these conspiracy theories. So I won't even bother to reply to that nonsense. The electorial college in my opinion is outdated but it has nothing to do with dense populations vs rural areas? I have no idea where that concept even came from. For instance in Pennsylvania if the voter turn out in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is high those two cities can outvote the rest of the state. trump won Pa. because the turn out in those two cities was way low. Which is the first time in my memory the state was won against those two cities. However all 20 Electorial college votes went to trump because he won the state. Even though he won by like 44,292 votes out of like 6 million cast.

Electoral vote200
Popular vote2,970,7332,926,441
Percentage48.18%47.46%

The electoral college was set up so States decided the president and trump was far from the first president to lose the popular vote but win the election.

Now I am not into politics at all. The thing is if we don't vote things like trump happen. .72% of the vote in Pennsylvania made trump happen in Pa. it was the same in many States. The thing is if only the angry people vote the Democracy can not hold. It take participation and too many people seem to think it can go on without guidance. If you don't think your vote matters trump is the result. I can think of no worse example in world history. keep in mind Hitler came to rule Germany in 1931. The Spanish civil war where he tested his military with the Condor league was not till 1936-1939. You say Trump failed to take the USA to war. If he gets re-elected he will. Hitler was in power almost 8 years before he invaded Poland. He had to build an economy and a military under the eyes of his enemies. trump inherited a great economy and the world's strongest military. he wants re-elected though before he tries to become a dictator.
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
Oh, hm, I had it wrong on the Electoral College. Chalk it up to me not living in the states. Yeah, that seems a bit clunky. Would make more sense if those 20 votes were scattered across the state region by region. Why they make it all or nothing, if I had to guess it must come down to the way the USA was conceived as a loose union where most decision making was supposed to take place at the state level. Anyways, I'll just leave that topic alone. I guess every country has its quirks.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Every time a normie claims Trump's presidency, in and of itself, is proof the system doesn't work, a kitten dies. Please think of the kittens.

I voted for him. I think things are somewhat better than they were 4 years ago, and if he's elected for a 2nd term, it will get better, barring any issues that are out of his control.

There are approximately as many people living in coastal urban centers (NYC, Boston, LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle) as there are in the entire rest of the country. Clearly, there is an enormous disparity between how the two groups live and think. Why should the coasts, who by the way allowed themselves to be legislated into hell holes, run the country?
 
Last edited:

MacCloud

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
East Coast USA
you voted for trump, every person who voted for trump tore a baby from the mother's arms on the Southern border, or murdered a Kurd in Syria, or cost us billions in farmer subsidies because of Chinese tariffs. Which by the way put large numbers of family farmers off their farms because the big conglomerate farm collectives took those subsidies. He just fired the chief intelligence officer for claiming Russia was already supporting trump for president. He hired a kiss-ass German Ambassador with no experience to take charge. N. Korea is now more capable of striking the USA with a missile thanks to him. He has added more troops into the war effort. He had an Iranian #2 guy in their government assassinated in Iraq ?? Which caused us no end of problems. He doesn't believe in global warming? Just how can anyone say we are better off being a Russian puppet state.

And no worries about the kittens, if they died it was because trump had them murdered in his childish temper tantrums when he faces the truth about his underwhelming stupidity. Oh and did you read how he didn't know where the capital of South Korea was and when he was shown said they had to move??? A city of nearly 10 million people! He is an idiot, he is a criminal, and if not for mitch mcconnel he would have been kicked out of office. There is nothing improved because of trump. In fact we just might be lucky to still have a country by 2020.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
Do I like giving citizens more rights than noncitizens, not kowtowing to a dictatorship that abuses its own people, not giving out unlimited welfare because of the feels, not believing in the Russian conspiracy theory, and not getting in climate agreements that don't punish the countries putting in the least effort toward reducing their pollution...and not watching CNN?

Yes.
 

MacCloud

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
East Coast USA
You don't have to watch CNN you just need to watch something other then Fox. And everything you just said was mostly false. But if you watch Fox not much to say to you,
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
Scott Adams calls this phenomenon, "Two movies on one screen". Those who support Trump and those who despise Trump are seeing the same current events but drawing completely opposite interpretations of what they mean. The reason is, according to Scott, people don't think for themselves so much as they get their opinions assigned to them by whatever media they choose to consume (Full disclosure: I unsubscribed from Scott Adams after he insisted that Epstein killed himself).

Where I think Scott goes wrong is that he thinks he can know the truth by watching corporate media on both left and right and looking for where they intersect. My strategy is to ignore all corporate media and listen to independent commentators. The way I decide who to listen to, is I pay attention to the signs that someone is full of shit, such as inconsistencies or weak arguments or confirmation bias, and then I filter out the people who I think are being dishonest. A good example is this channel called Innuendo Studios, that I was at one point attracted to because it had videos talking about how to deal with the alt-right. But I came to realize the things he was saying were just as applicable to SJWs, and basically any other troll or NPC on the internet. I tuned out from that channel, and discovered a couple years later that the guy who was running it is a lifestyle cuckold, which is pretty funny.

The result of my filtering has left me with a handful of people I believe are honest (Tim Pool, Carl Benjamin, and Tarl Warwick), and they seem to agree that Trump isn't perfect, but he's doing more good than bad, and will likely be re-elected in a landslide, mostly because the Democratic Party is in chaos and doesn't have any candidates who are viable. I can't offer this as anything more than my opinion, though, as Mr. Lebowski would likely point out.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
I don't own a TV and my only engagement with normie media is Amazon Prime movies (which I can be selective about) and when my aux cable isn't working and half the time I listen to classical music. If I want filth, I'll fabricate it myself tyvm

The thing about criticizing Trump publicly is this: Do I have a number of grievances? Yea. Would I enjoy his company as a person? No. If I designed a perfect leader, would they resemble Trump? Hell no. But the emotion is somewhat between "beggars can't be choosers" and "don't look a gift horse in the mouth". If I articulated all my grievances, would would be the use of any of that information apart from trying to make myself look cool and indifferent?

It's not like he has competition that's trying to out-Trump him and try to do more of the things he's done to appeal to Americans. When that becomes a case, then yea that would be a time to be critical and make comparisons. Of course, I'm not saying everyone should brainwash themselves to believe Trump is the God Emperor and the gold standard for what the American president should be, but if there's a halfway-decent Republican that's less of a neocon than the others, not an Evangelical, and is doing things here and there that are making "the establishment" lose their minds, that's quite a fine start.

I don't think this contradicts my theory about the "illuminati" because although we don't know whether there's malevolent interference in the government or just a high level of incompetence and personality dysfunction (power attracts psychos), it's better to act as if we can control it in any capacity whatsoever in case we do/can.
 

humon

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Location
Canada
He may not be the gold standard, but his space armour is pretty bling.

Speaking of competition, it looks like Bloomberg is trying to out-Trump Trump, but only on a superficial level. He thinks if he just shoots his mouth off about race realism and tells women who work for him to abort their babies that he's out-Trumping Trump; but only in the most Orange sense of the term, hehe. Let them come, here's one Dwarf ye didn't genocide!

*burns a cross* Bloomberg 2020 y'all!

Yes, it's a very good thing if the establishment is finally treating the Executive branch as potentially the next Hitler. The whole point of the American system, as I understand it, is to prevent tyranny. Not that they knew what Hitler was, but they certainly didn't want another George III. Here in Canada, well, I'll take George III over Justin Trudeau. At least the former made the slave ships run on time.

Well, not really. I hope QE2 lives just long enough that Prince Charles dies before she does (preferably by shooting himself twice in the back of the head, like Meghan will eventually do--or a drunken limo crash, that also works).
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Location
United States
> to prevent tyranny

Supposedly it was created with that intention.

Zoomers grew up with helicopter parents (Gen-Xers, perhaps compensating for their latchkey upbringing and "stranger danger"?) and regardless of the side of the political spectrum they're on, they want that same control and structure imposed on society, it seems -- what to say, what to do and when to do it, what you can have and what you can't, what kind of person you can be. All I ever see from them is, "We need the government regulations to stop bigotry/degeneracy!" It's like it's inconceivable to them the appeal of allowing a bit of chaos for more freedom than they'd have otherwise. The SJW and the fascist are the same type of person AFAIC.

It doesn't help the boomer experience lead to the mentality of "It's just part of growing up that you make peace with the system" and stereotype of anyone who suggests resisting the government as an idealistic rebel without a clue, or they're going through a phase. When someone says the government is getting tyrannical and we should consider resisting in practical ways, it's just not taken seriously. Do people who suggest it even take themselves seriously, because they've internalized the aforementioned point of view? Boogaloo is a meme. I meme it. But are we gonna overthrow the government or are we just gonna wear hawaiian shirts and jerk off to night vision goggles and homemade guns?

> Turdeau

so punchable

> Prince Charles

Obviously, I'm American, but what does it matter what the royal family does?

IIRC they're only allowed to be apolitical, don't have any actual power, and are more like mascots who keep the tabloids in business. Even in America, they're in the tabloids.

"MEGAN MARKLE'S MARRIAGE DISASTER. CAMILLA AND CHARLES IN A ROW. PRINCESS BEATRICE DRUNK AT WIMBLEDON"

I can't imagine caring
 
Top Bottom