• Harry Hindu
    4k
    You're just voting for more racism and corruption in voting for Biden. The evidence was all there, but the mainstream media swept it under the rug. Biden was not the best choice on the ballot. There were many others. To think that Biden was the best when he has many of the same character flaws as Trump is insane.
  • Michael
    9.5k
    Biden was not the best choice on the ballot. There were many others. To think that Biden was the best when he has many of the same character flaws as Trump is insane.Harry Hindu

    The only realistic choices were Biden and Trump. They were the only two that could have won. And Biden is by far the better choice than Trump.

    You're just voting for more racism and corruption in voting for Biden.Harry Hindu

    No, they were voting for less racism and corruption in voting for Biden. Trump and the Republicans are far more racist and corrupt than Biden and the Democrats.
  • Harry Hindu
    4k
    The only realistic choices were Biden and Trump. They were the only two that could have won. And Biden is by far the better choice than Trump.Michael
    Its not realistic when people have been manipulated into thinking that they are the only two choices. Again, thinking that your one vote is going to decide the election between two parties is what is delusional. You feel better voting your conscious, not voting for something because someone has scared you from voting for the other.

    No, they were voting for less racism and corruption in voting for Biden. Trump and the Republicans are far more racist and corrupt than Biden and the Democrats.Michael
    :lol: evidence? Remember Biden has been in power for nearly 50 years where he had the ability to funnel his racism into legislation. If you want to whine about systemic racism, Biden is one of the primary manufacturers, thanks to his 50 year tenure, of how the US is systemically racist today.
  • Michael
    9.5k
    evidence?Harry Hindu

    GOP Admins Had 38 Times More Criminal Convictions Than Democrats, 1961-2016

    We compared 56 years of corruption in Republican and Democratic presidencies: both sides are not equally corrupt.

    Republican administrations have vastly more corruption than Democratic administrations. We provide new research on the numbers to make the case.

    We compared 28 years each of Democratic and Republican administrations, 1961-2016, five Presidents from each party. During that period Republicans scored eighteen times more individuals and entities indicted, thirty-eight times more convictions, and thirty-nine times more individuals who had prison time.

    Given the at least 17 active investigations plaguing President Trump, he is on a path to exceed previous administrations, though the effects of White House obstruction, potential pardons, and the as-yet unknown impact of the GOP’s selection of judges may limit investigations, subpoenas, prosecutions, etc. Of course, as we are comparing equal numbers of Presidents and years in office from the Democratic and Republican parties, the current President is not included.

    And as the quote says, the figure doesn't include anything from Trump's term. Here's a bunch of indictments and convictions for that.

    Its not realistic when people have been manipulated into thinking that they are the only two choices.Harry Hindu

    It's not manipulation. It's a fact.

    You feel better voting your conscious, not voting for something because someone has scared you from voting for the other.Harry Hindu

    Reality doesn't care about your feelings. If you prefer Trump to Biden then a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump wasted and if you prefer Biden to Trump then a vote for a third party is a vote for Biden wasted. Either Trump or Biden was going to win, and their win would have a very real and major effect on people's lives. If you believe (rightly) that Trump is incompetent, criminal, harmful, and otherwise unfit for office, then you should vote for Biden. Preventing people and the country from suffering under a Trump administration is more important than you being principled and taking the moral high ground by wasting a vote on some "better" third party.
  • jorndoe
    1.2k
    Would he be that pesky?

    Mr. Esper and General Milley worried that if they even raised their names — Gen. Jacqueline D. Van Ovost of the Air Force and Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson of the Army — the Trump White House would replace them with its own candidates before leaving office.Promotions for Female Generals Were Delayed Over Fears of Trump’s Reaction (The New York Times)
  • NOS4A2
    4.2k


    Would he be that pesky?

    No. The fears that “any candidates other than white men for jobs mostly held by white men might run into turmoil once their nominations got to the White House” is false in its face.

    This Is the Woman President Trump Wants to Be the First Female African-American Marine General
  • unenlightened
    5.5k
    if you prefer Biden to Trump then a vote for a third party is a vote for Biden wasted. Either Trump or Biden was going to win, and their win would have a very real and major effect on people's lives. If you believe (rightly) that Trump is incompetent, criminal, harmful, and otherwise unfit for office, then you should vote for Biden.Michael

    Have to disagree with this. If you think the 2 party system results in poor government, then voting for a third option is the the way to go. It may take many elections to build support, but your counsel of despair for any alternative other than narcissist old fart or senile old fart is not true, and perpetuates the status quo. Encourage folks to vote for real change by voting for real change!
  • ssu
    3.8k
    The answer isn't a third party because people then worry that one party will siphon votes from another guaranteeing that the other will win. Abolish all parties and that eliminates that problem.Harry Hindu
    No, that's only the cry that the two-party system feeds the people and has successfully brainwashed many Americans to think (and hence stay loyal to their corrupt two-party system, whatever happens).

    I think that a multiparty system would be an improvement to the US. If parties have to make coalition administrations, that has a positive diminishing effect on the polarization that is rampant today. The parties simply have to work together unlike now. Besides, now you don't know what you get when voting for a party. A good start would be if both of the two parties would break up into two.
  • Wayfarer
    11.3k
    After a relative handful of Republicans acknowledged with their votes and in their words the indisputable truth that Donald Trump led an insurrection against the United States government, the rest of their party made their position absolutely clear: These folks had chosen the wrong party if they were going to let truth or conscience influence their decisions.

    Dave Ball, a Pennsylvania GOP official, said the quiet part out loud with respect to Senator Pat Toomey, one of the seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump in the Senate: “We did not send him there to vote his conscience. We did not send him there to ‘do the right thing’ or whatever.”

    The GOP Is Now the Party of Thugs, Terrorists, Racists and Dopes

    And the lunatics really have taken control of the asylum.
  • Harry Hindu
    4k

    :shade: Couldn't have found a more legit source?
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/rantt-media/amp/

    All you are doing is proving my point.

    It's not manipulation. It's a fact.Michael
    Its not a fact. Do you even pay attention to who is on the ballot, or do you just look for all the Ds on the ballot and fill in the circle next to them.

    Reality doesn't care about your feelings. If you prefer Trump to Biden then a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump wasted and if you prefer Biden to Trump then a vote for a third party is a vote for Biden wasted. Either Trump or Biden was going to win, and their win would have a very real and major effect on people's lives. If you believe (rightly) that Trump is incompetent, criminal, harmful, and otherwise unfit for office, then you should vote for Biden. Preventing people and the country from suffering under a Trump administration is more important than you being principled and taking the moral high ground by wasting a vote on some "better" third party.Michael

    I'd prefer Trump over Biden, but there were others i preferred over Trump, and is who I voted for. At least I'm consistent, unlike you who voted for the manufacturer of systemic racism. You do realize that there were non-racists on the ballot, right?
  • Harry Hindu
    4k
    No, that's only the cry that the two-party system feeds the people and has successfully brainwashed many Americans to think (and hence stay loyal to their corrupt two-party system, whatever happens).

    I think that a multiparty system would be an improvement to the US. If parties have to make coalition administrations, that has a positive diminishing effect on the polarization that is rampant today. The parties simply have to work together unlike now. Besides, now you don't know what you get when voting for a party. A good start would be if both of the two parties would break up into two.
    ssu
    Well there's the final nail in the coffin of the idea that a third party is necessary. What you are actually saying is that we need four parties and then for the Dems and Reps to split at the same time which isn't likely at all.

    The primary reason to abolish political parties is because it a form of group-think. Political parties are no different than a religion.
  • Michael
    9.5k
    :shade: Couldn't have found a more legit source?
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/rantt-media/amp/

    All you are doing is proving my point.
    Harry Hindu

    Overall, we rate Rantt Media moderately Left Biased based on story selection and High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing.

    Are you suggesting that there were Democrat officials who were indicted/convicted but not counted and/or that there were Republican officials who were counted but not indicted/convicted?

    All you are doing is proving my point.

    No I'm not. I'm proving my point. The Republicans (including Trump) are more corrupt, as the number of indictments and convictions show.

    Its not a fact. Do you even pay attention to who is on the ballot, or do you just look for all the Ds on the ballot and fill in the circle next to them.

    As I said, "The only realistic choices were Biden and Trump. They were the only two that could have won".

    At least I'm consistent, unlike you who voted for the manufacturer of systemic racism. You do realize that there were non-racists on the ballot, right?

    I didn't vote. I'm not American. Whether or not you're consistent is irrelevant (and I don't even know what you mean by this). Trump and his administration are a danger, and so anyone who recognizes that should have voted for the only person who could beat him: Biden. If enough of these people waste their vote on a third party then Trump would have won and people and the country would suffer more because of it. Your "principles" aren't more important than people's lives.
  • Pfhorrest
    4.1k
    The primary reason to abolish political parties is because it a form of group-thinkHarry Hindu

    Walk me through what "abolishing political parties" would look like, and how it would differ from enshrining one party as the sole official not-actually-a-party-I-swear.

    It would be like "abolishing religion". What you end up with is a state-mandated view of what is or isn't correct to believe... a state religion, even if it doesn't feature God or other things characteristic of normal religions.

    I don't like religions, and I don't like political parties, but I don't see how you can mandate their abolition without in practice setting up one above all others, which would be even worse.
  • tim wood
    6.1k
    I'd prefer Trump over Biden, but there were others I preferred over Trump, and is who I voted for. At least I'm consistent, unlike you who voted for the manufacturer of systemic racism.Harry Hindu
    When ignorance tries to be principled it is called stupidity. I don't know you, so how can I insult you? Because it is not an insult. Try to consider the possibility that you're posting stupid stuff. You prefer a liar and narcissist. You prefer a man who would fuck you in a New York minute. Did I say "fuck"? Bad word wrong word. Your favorite would hurt you in any way possible including to death - and in significant ways already has, but you too blind to see. His entire life has been a lie and lies, and all of them to hurt people.

    And Biden "the manufacturer of systemic racism"? Care to prove that? And btw, if you're on about any efficacy in third-party voting, why did not you write in the name of your favorite candidate?

    Bottom line: either you're a reasonable person, or just one of those fools that uses sites like this to rant and spread poison, essentially an infantile display. Which?
  • praxis
    3.2k
    The primary reason to abolish political parties is because it a form of group-think. Political parties are no different than a religion.Harry Hindu

    Groupthink can happen in any group where conformity is valued over dissonance to such an extent that serious errors result. Trump seemed to surround himself with yes-men, and serious errors were made in his administration.
  • Harry Hindu
    4k
    Are you suggesting that there were Democrat officials who were indicted/convicted but not counted and/or that there were Republican officials who were counted but not indicted/convicted?Michael
    What I am suggesting is that you are only providing one biased source for your "evidence". If I only provided one source that was biased, would you take it the same way, or would you be a hypocrite?

    Looking at this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_officials_convicted_of_corruption_offenses
    There are more Democrats than Republicans.

    No I'm not. I'm proving my point. The Republicans (including Trump) are more corrupt, as the number of indictments and convictions show.Michael
    The fact that you are only providing one biased source shows that you are only interested in "facts" that support your premise. You don't even question it. You believe whatever you read if it supports your premise. That's not the way it's suppose to work.

    As I said, "The only realistic choices were Biden and Trump. They were the only two that could have won".Michael
    Only because people like you keep thinking that those are the only choices. Its like saying that the only realistic belief is one in which most people believe. There is such a thing as a mass delusion. If most people stopped believing that, then it wouldn't be a "realistic" choices. So it's not that there actually are only two choices, it's thatmost people have chosen to limit themselves to believing that there are only two choices because the two parties have indoctrinated them into thinking that the other is so evil that the only other option is them. Like Tulsi Gabbard said, it's all about getting wins for your party.

    I didn't vote. I'm not American. Whether or not you're consistent is irrelevant (and I don't even know what you mean by this). Trump and his administration are a danger, and so anyone who recognizes that should have voted for the only person who could beat him: Biden. If enough of these people waste their vote on a third party then Trump would have won and people and the country would suffer more because of it. Your "principles" aren't more important than people's lives.Michael
    Strange. You seem to have more to say about American politics, when you don't even live here, than about the politics in your own country. Is the right-wing in your country also more corrupt than the left-wing?

    Being consistent is everything, or else why speak at all? Being inconsistent is equivalent to not saying anything at all, or just making scribbles on the screen.
  • Benkei
    4.1k

    This is a specific sub category of crimes so a different dataset.

    Edit: @Michael this is interesting which suggests Democrats are more corrupt and both your statistics suck. http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/
  • tim wood
    6.1k
    Being consistent is everything, or else why speak at all? Being inconsistent is equivalent to not saying anything at all, or just making scribbles on the screen.Harry Hindu

    Cf. Emerson on consistency. Or for Harry's sake:
    "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. ”
  • NOS4A2
    4.2k


    Strange. You seem to have more to say about American politics, when you don't even live here, than about the politics in your own country.

    It’s a sort of cultural imperialism, spreading through various Internet echo-chambers as quickly as the Washington press will allow it. I also don’t live in the US, but our press no less resorts to the same churnalism as other countries, and everything comes out reading like a CNN article. I fear there isn’t an original thought among them.
  • Paul S
    114
    I don't know why this thread exists in a forum like this but I would say that from a philosophical point of view:

    Many of you who support Biden and post here are projecting your sense of guilt about wherever you really picked the right guy and are trying to convince yourself he was the right choice or that you had no choice in when you in fact did, and many of you just want to see a return to etablished norms, perceived stability.

    Many of you who supported Trump are playing the "I told you so" card, given that Biden is in the line of blame now, and as many of you see it, he is senile and arguably not running the show, and you also feel hurt that your period of whitelash has come to and end and that you really needed 8 years of Trump to nulify the color of Obama .

    Just my take. I mean what's done is done. Neither camp can everse its choice. Shouldn't you just grow up and not post stuff like this in a philosophy forum. Wallowing in and projecting your misery or false sense of satisfaction won't fix anything or improve your life.
  • Harry Hindu
    4k
    This is a specific sub category of crimes so a different dataset.Benkei
    We were talking about corruption, so it isn't a different dataset. We should also add local and state officials to the mix and see what we get.

    Edit: Michael this is interesting which suggests Democrats are more corrupt and both your statistics suck. http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/Benkei
    If you were paying attention, you'd know that the point I was not trying to make is that Dems are more corrupt than Republicans. Remember, I'm advocating for the abolition of ALL political parties.
    My point was,
    " Instead, what should be illuminating is to peruse those Wikipedia pages and see how many scandals and convictions there are on both sides. That should be enough to make one hesitant to become a cheerleader for either party."
    http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/
  • Harry Hindu
    4k
    Walk me through what "abolishing political parties" would look like, and how it would differ from enshrining one party as the sole official not-actually-a-party-I-swear.Pfhorrest
    I don't get this logic. How would one party acquire power if there are no parties? I'm going to need you to walk me through that in order to properly answer your question.

    It would be like "abolishing religion". What you end up with is a state-mandated view of what is or isn't correct to believe... a state religion, even if it doesn't feature God or other things characteristic of normal religions.Pfhorrest
    In a way, yes, it would be like abolishing religion. But people will still believe in a god or spirituality, even without a religion. So abolishing political parties isn't to say that we've eliminated the belief in what the right way for you to live is, just that you can't impose that on others.

    I don't like religions, and I don't like political parties, but I don't see how you can mandate their abolition without in practice setting up one above all others, which would be even worse.Pfhorrest
    Yeah, I just don't get how a party can come to power if they are all abolished. Abolishing parties would force citizens to listen to the candidates rather than resorting to the lazy method of looking for the Ds and Rs next to candidates names.
  • Harry Hindu
    4k
    It’s a sort of cultural imperialism, spreading through various Internet echo-chambers as quickly as the Washington press will allow it. I also don’t live in the US, but our press no less resorts to the same churnalism as other countries, and everything comes out reading like a CNN article. I fear there isn’t an original thought among them.NOS4A2
    Agreed, but then with all of these non-Americans' emotional investment in American politics as if it were their own country makes me wonder if these non-Americans are really more interested in pushing the United States into another civil war.
  • Harry Hindu
    4k
    Your favorite would hurt you in any way possibletim wood
    You obviously haven't been paying attention. Where on this forum have I ever said that Trump was my favorite?

    And Biden "the manufacturer of systemic racism"? Care to prove that? And btw, if you're on about any efficacy in third-party voting, why did not you write in the name of your favorite candidate?tim wood
    I agree to an extent. Systemic racism is a myth. Like I told Michael, IF you want to whine about systemic racism, Biden is one of the primary manufacturers, thanks to his 50 year tenure, of how the US is systemically racist today.

    So, I'm going to ask you to define systemic racism and then ask you to try to reconcile your definition with the fact that Biden has been in power over the last 50 years.

    Cf. Emerson on consistency. Or for Harry's sake:
    "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. ”
    tim wood
    Thanks for informing us that you don't value consistency. I can now safely ignore your posts as they won't be containing any actual information.
  • Harry Hindu
    4k
    Just my take. I mean what's done is done. Neither camp can everse its choice. Shouldn't you just grow up and not post stuff like this in a philosophy forum. Wallowing in and projecting your misery or false sense of satisfaction won't fix anything or improve your life.Paul S
    The problem is that we have camps in the first place.
  • Benkei
    4.1k
    Now you're just being a disagreeable. There was a discussion about the facts Michael used and you tried to waylay it with a subcategory of crimes, which is not possible because it's comparing apples with pears. Turned out both apples and pears were rotten any ways. That's the only point I made. The rest of your discussion with him doesn't interest me.
  • Pfhorrest
    4.1k
    I don't get this logic. How would one party acquire power if there are no parties? I'm going to need you to walk me through that in order to properly answer your question.Harry Hindu

    Political parties are a consequence of freedom of association. US law does not recognize political parties as part of the governmental structure; they're just private groups of people pursuing the same political ends together. So I'm not clear what you want done to ban political parties, if not just banning people with similar political interests from working together toward those ends.
  • Harry Hindu
    4k
    Now you're just being a disagreeable. There was a discussion about the facts Michael used and you tried to waylay it with a subcategory of crimes, which is not possible because it's comparing apples with pears.Benkei
    No. It seems like you are the one arguing forthe sake if arguing.. Be more specific. What is the subcategory that you are talking about? Corruption is what we were talking about, so what part of the link that I provided is about something other than corruption?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.