Who's your candidate?

Moderators: I am nobody, The Deku and the Ivy

User avatar
Bomby
Moderator
Posts: 22876
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 1:00 am
Location: My avatar is a dog biting part of a watermelon
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

#21

Post by Bomby » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:46 am

As far as capitalism vs communism goes, it is unwise to cling to any ideology

User avatar
The Deku and the Ivy
Moderator
Posts: 12111
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 9 times

#22

Post by The Deku and the Ivy » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:40 am

Sanders, I guess. I'm not sure what he could realistically get done, but I bet I could count on him to prevent the things I'd want a president to prevent.

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 23520
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃
Been thanked: 40 times

#23

Post by X-3 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:13 pm

LOOT, post: 1582618, member: 21459 wrote: What the goddamn hell are you even arguing at this point, the fact that people are picking apart an old work? We are in the age where people have finally rejected the "winners write history" notion. Absolutely ridiculous notion.
I'm pointing out that historical work and controversy are essentially synonyms. It's like saying water is wet. It's a complete non-argument, especially when you're dealing with a 800 page book with several contributors.

"Winners write history" has been gone for a while. Communism in this context is a victor anyway.
Once again what the goddamn hell are you arguing, you literally counter point b in the same sentence. Are you saying famines are a force controlled majorly by communist governments?
I'm admitting that the criticism over including the famine's death toll being included in the greater death toll presented by the Black Book is extremely valid. It's a complex subject that seems to depend somewhat on each individual's definition of culpability. See:
One of the top American historians on the Soviet Union under Stalin, J. Arch Getty, argues that the equivalence cannot be fairly made because democide implies a deliberate act of government murder whereas the famines where caused by stupidity as opposed to a systemic plan (I will speak more on this in a second).
Tazy Ten, post: 1582611, member: 19345 wrote: 2. You can't blame a government for the deaths of its own soldiers. That's so stupid.
Eh, I would. Just look at the Eastern Front in WWII for example.

User avatar
New! Tazy Ten
Posts: 29144
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Not the Thunder Temple.
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 27 times
Contact:

#24

Post by New! Tazy Ten » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:01 pm

LOOT, post: 1582618, member: 21459 wrote:
welcome to the mind of Tazy where every death in the winner's wars are merely numbers and the means do not matter
Welcome to the mind of Loot where every death in the winner's wars is blamed on the winner regardless of context or reason because the opposing side has no choice even if they started the war.
tell me more
Okay!
Source mentioned above]Korean War 1950–1953 1 wrote:
They literally multiplied the number of total deaths by 5. Like, holy s**t. How can I trust anything that site says when they balloon up figures like this to begin with? You tell ME more.
Care to rethink this statement or are you going to ignore what you just said simply to dodge embarrassment
No I think my statement is completely logical and I'm proud of it.

You might as well add all the deaths caused by police officers, car crashes, disease, wanton acts of murder, suicide, and accidental happenstance because the government is just as involved, that'll get you billions of deaths, in fact that'll get you all the deaths.

What? Were you going to say that the government forces soldiers to fight? Because that's not how war works, that's not how people work, and that's not how blame works. There are a lot of people that would do anything to protect the ones they love from harm. No government forces them to do that, draft or no draft.
X-3, post: 1582674, member: 27765 wrote: Eh, I would. Just look at the Eastern Front in WWII for example.
I'll agree that when a government makes decisions that causes soldiers to die at the hands of the enemy they are at fault. Nothing is black and white. But at some point you have to realize that it takes two to tango. You can't blame all the deaths in a battle on one side when both sides use deadly force. It's not reasonable.

Actually, I'm with X-3, a lot of that article stands on ground so shaky it might as well be quicksand.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12781
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 33 times

#25

Post by I am nobody » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:15 pm

Communism debate is gonna need a new thread unless Sanders suddenly becomes one.

User avatar
ScottyMcGee
Posts: 5240
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: New Jersey
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

#26

Post by ScottyMcGee » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:43 pm

Deez Nuts
SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT

User avatar
Bomby
Moderator
Posts: 22876
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 1:00 am
Location: My avatar is a dog biting part of a watermelon
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

#27

Post by Bomby » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:27 pm

[QUOTE="Vgfian, post: 1582646, member: 32425"]If you really want to see the difference in capitalism and communism go look at north and south Korea, and tell us which you would rather live in and justify it.[/QUOTE]
South Korea has been capitalist since 1948. It was a harsh dictatorship, an autocratic military government, for decades while still capitalist. It wasn't until the June Democratic Uprising in 1987 that South Korea began to become the democracy it is today.

User avatar
Validecember
Supermod
Posts: 49800
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: World -1
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 158 times
Contact:

#28

Post by Validecember » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:27 pm

Ian said let's keep the thread on track, so let's keep it on track.

Bernie is the only first-party candidate I can see myself voting for. I like a lot of his ideas, though I'm not quite sure how he plans to implement them with Congress how it is. If he doesn't get the nomination I'll probably cast my symbolic vote for a third party again.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8705
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

#29

Post by Bad Dragonite » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:30 pm

^^and look how much they've thrived since then


I can say that either Bernie or Donald would be fun to have in the white house because they're both relatively easy to make fun of.[DOUBLEPOST=1453429859,1453429646][/DOUBLEPOST][QUOTE="I am nobody, post: 1582687, member: 34539"]Communism debate is gonna need a new thread unless Sanders suddenly becomes one.[/QUOTE]
well I kinda figure since someone said they're voting communist it is kinda on topic. There are more parties than just the two. But either way it should have it's own topic
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
Bomby
Moderator
Posts: 22876
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 1:00 am
Location: My avatar is a dog biting part of a watermelon
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

#30

Post by Bomby » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:31 pm

^ They didn't advance because of capitalism. You seem to be missing the "democratic uprising" part.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8705
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

#31

Post by Bad Dragonite » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:38 pm

sure they did, a free market paved the way for democracy, the same way communism would regress us into a dictatorship. :) either way if you wanna continue we should start a new thread.
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
Marilincarnation
Supermod
Posts: 41745
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001 1:00 am
Location: What if we die and it turns out God is a big CHICKEN?? What then?!
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 111 times
Contact:

#32

Post by Marilincarnation » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:41 pm

I'm seriously only gonna vote if Trump gets the Republican nomination so that I can vote against him.

If anyone else gets the republican nom, I'm just gonna let it all be everyone else's problem. Doesn't matter to me.
Carthago delendum est

User avatar
Bomby
Moderator
Posts: 22876
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 1:00 am
Location: My avatar is a dog biting part of a watermelon
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

#33

Post by Bomby » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:46 pm

[QUOTE="Vgfian, post: 1582756, member: 32425"]sure they did, a free market paved the way for democracy, the same way communism would regress us into a dictatorship. :smile: either way if you wanna continue we should start a new thread.[/QUOTE]
Also worth noting: North Korea isn't a communist country. Once Kim Il-Sung died, they shifted from a socialist state to a state-capitalist military dictatorship (a la Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Franco's Spain). The Juche ideology bears no resemblance to Marxism/Leninism whatsoever, and is more like extreme ethnic nationalism... which far-left politics are against. Coincidentally, North Korea hasn't even considered themselves communist since 1977.

That's all I have to say about that.

User avatar
Bad Dragonite
Posts: 8705
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:24 pm
Location: Hetalia
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

#34

Post by Bad Dragonite » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:13 pm

[QUOTE="Bomby, post: 1582758, member: 17840"]Also worth noting: North Korea isn't a communist country. Once Kim Il-Sung died, they shifted from a socialist state to a state-capitalist military dictatorship (a la Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Franco's Spain). The Juche ideology bears no resemblance to Marxism/Leninism whatsoever, and is more like extreme ethnic nationalism... which far-left politics are against. Coincidentally, North Korea hasn't even considered themselves communist since 1977.

That's all I have to say about that.[/QUOTE]
yes because it's Kim il sung's "original, brilliant and revolutionary contribution to national and international thought". That he totes didnt have do borrow from those foreign idiots. :tongue: its kinda like that time he golfed a perfect game his first time playing, it's there to make him look good by embellishing the truth drastically its mainly just their leader trying to steal credit for something rather than say he based it on something else. Really the main difference is a bit more focus on isolationism and telling the people "it's up to you for the revolution to happen" as they have a gun shoved in their face before being lead off to camp where as the other says "no it's all up to the government, just trust big brother"


^^I can say I'd rather have trump than Hillary but not by much. Like I constantly think hes either an idiot or a mad genius. Like if hes trying to get people to talk about issues they're definitely talking.
-I'm Vgfian

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 12781
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 33 times

#35

Post by I am nobody » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:36 pm

[QUOTE="Vgfian, post: 1582750, member: 32425"]
well I kinda figure since someone said they're voting communist it is kinda on topic. There are more parties than just the two. But either way it should have it's own topic[/QUOTE]

If that chain had ever led to debating the US Communist Party, maybe. The discussion of communism elsewhere has gone on long enough that it's effectively a derail - anything further in this thread is getting deleted.

I'm somewhat undecided. Most of the Republican side seems like either an unmitigated disaster (Trump, Cruz, Carson, Paul, Christie, and Fiorina) and/or desperate to say anything to stay relevant (Bush). Rubio's foreign policy is at least less insane than Cruz, and I can't tell how much of his other policies are real versus trying to satisfy the primary crowd. Kasich is the only one I'd currently ever consider voting for, but that seems unlikely to be relevant.

On the Democratic side, I don't see what makes Hillary so popular. I don't think she was particularly effective as Secretary of State and her record is otherwise full of flip-flops without anything that really stands out as a reason to become president. I kind of see her as the Democratic version of Bush, except that her establishment cred never got truly challenged and she didn't have to dump her entire campaign policy. I don't see a great deal more from Sanders on the achievements front, but he's at least a bit more consistent with his views. I'd prefer the nomination race be close so they each have to reach out beyond their base, but I'm not really supporting either at the moment. (at least, not beyond the extent to which wanting a close race requires me to want Hillary to underperform)

I had planned to vote third party when it was looking like Bush/Clinton, but that probably won't happen if anyone from the unmitigated disaster category is nominated. Even though Delaware is basically guaranteed to be blue no matter who's nominated, I wouldn't want to take the 1 in a trillion chance of it somehow mattering how I voted.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE PRESENTS!
Posts: 28324
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Has thanked: 234 times
Been thanked: 11 times

#36

Post by I REALLY HATE PRESENTS! » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:59 pm

[QUOTE="Marilink, post: 1582757, member: 23215"]I'm seriously only gonna vote if Trump gets the Republican nomination so that I can vote against him.

If anyone else gets the republican nom, I'm just gonna let it all be everyone else's problem. Doesn't matter to me.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what all of your political views are but Trump seems to be more of a Christian-friendly choice than Sanders ("Rated 7% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record"). Between the two you would vote for Sanders?

User avatar
Marilincarnation
Supermod
Posts: 41745
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001 1:00 am
Location: What if we die and it turns out God is a big CHICKEN?? What then?!
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 111 times
Contact:

#37

Post by Marilincarnation » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:33 am

I don't think Christianity has anything to do with the government, morally or otherwise. So no, whether a candidate is Christian or Christian-friendly is completely irrelevant to me. My religion is not a political ideology and I really hate that people have somehow made it one.

I can go deeper into that if you'd like, but suffice to say that I would 100% vote for Sanders in that race.
Carthago delendum est

User avatar
I REALLY HATE PRESENTS!
Posts: 28324
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Has thanked: 234 times
Been thanked: 11 times

#38

Post by I REALLY HATE PRESENTS! » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:05 pm

[QUOTE="Marilink, post: 1582789, member: 23215"]I don't think Christianity has anything to do with the government, morally or otherwise. So no, whether a candidate is Christian or Christian-friendly is completely irrelevant to me. My religion is not a political ideology and I really hate that people have somehow made it one.

I can go deeper into that if you'd like, but suffice to say that I would 100% vote for Sanders in that race.[/QUOTE]

I would be interested in hearing your reasoning for strongly siding with Sanders vs Trump, yes.

User avatar
Marilincarnation
Supermod
Posts: 41745
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001 1:00 am
Location: What if we die and it turns out God is a big CHICKEN?? What then?!
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 111 times
Contact:

#39

Post by Marilincarnation » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:09 pm

Is "Because he's running against Trump" a satisfactory answer?
Carthago delendum est

User avatar
Puddin
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:00 am

#40

Post by Puddin » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:50 pm

Who's your candidate?
Jill Stein

http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm

Post Reply

Return to “Politics, Philosophy, and Religion”