Is It Bad That I Don't Find Interest In Politics?

[EquALLity]

huh

Whatever.

So if I believe in half of this shit, that labels me as a democrat/liberal, even though I myself don't identify as either? and you could say you don't label yourself, but I don't care about the political and governmental factors.

If you agree mostly with liberal values, that would make you a liberal. Just like you're a vegan if you have vegan beliefs but don't identify as vegan.

I never asked to have someone work for me. Plus, they technically run the country so............................................................................................................................

What's your solution to representative democracy, in a population as large as America's?

They're supposed to run the country for the people.

What role does politics play?

What role does politics play in fixing political problems?

anyhow, after watching the SchoolHouse Rock video another time over, it depends on how stupid the president or members of congress are. Or their lack of integrity. To be fair, it could easily be both.

I don't see how this affects that you should vote for the lesser of two evils, so that the more evil candidate doesn't get elected.

Unless they're lying.

Factor in honesty when voting based on past statements vs past actions.

If they aren't completely right, then they aren't so called "right" policies.

Not sure why that's relevant if true. Lesser of two evils.

After a long time thinking, I'm skeptical that we live in a democracy. The multinational corporations make these laws for more money, power, or to fuck the 99%. How do they do this under a congressman's name? Why, a lobbyist of course! Not to mention a straight, white, wealthy, American male has a higher chance of becoming a congressman than say a gay, white, wealthy, American male.

How do we fix bad things like the current campaign finance system? Politics.

So you're saying that if I was at a war, I wouldn't bother defending myself. Then again, America only joined the allies in WWII for defence and resources, not because of Hitler genociding the Jews.

That doesn't really address my point.

Here's a quote with the same idea:
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

So what if you had one hundred and one people?

So what if you had 99 arrows, and one arrow said when you were about to shoot it (pretend they can speak), "But what if you already shot 100 arrows?" What would be the consequence of shooting that arrow? The beast (nothing against elephants) still standing.

What if you had shot 100 already? One unnecessary arrow is used, but the beast is brought down.

So what do you think a person should do, if he or she isn't sure if 99 or 100 arrows were already used (assume the beast doesn't show signs of going down yet)?

[Red]

anyhoo

huh

Whatever.

yeah

If you agree mostly with liberal values, that would make you a liberal.

But I'm not a liberal, I'm a libertarian.

Just like you're a vegan if you have vegan beliefs but don't identify as vegan.

This sentence hurts my brain. (Yes, even if it doesn't have any nerves)
What are you implying? Like say if I advocate vegan lifestyle and are against animal treatment and usage, yet I eat a steak every day, that would make me a vegan?

What's your solution to representative democracy, in a population as large as America's?

Socialism, equality, the rich not well, being as rich, y'know that kinda shit.

They're supposed to run the country for the people.

Because people are too stupid to look out for themselves.
Wait..

What role does politics play in fixing political problems?

Well the problems you listed...................

I don't see how this affects that you should vote for the lesser of two evils, so that the more evil candidate doesn't get elected.

What if you see them both equally evil? And there isn't any obligation with not voting if you think the whole thing is bollocks. What's the problem with not participating in something that you, well, don't care about?

Factor in honesty when voting based on past statements vs past actions.

Three words: Obama.

Not sure why that's relevant if true. Lesser of two evils.

Y'know what, nevermind.

How do we fix bad things like the current campaign finance system? Politics.

How does politics fix these problems?

That doesn't really address my point.

What is your point?

Here's a quote with the same idea:
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

Oh. Did I ever imply that I wouldn't try? C'mon, from the way it looks, I don't think i have the ability or authority to change anything. If there was a chance, it would be a .00000000000000000001% chance.

So what if you had 99 arrows, and one arrow said when you were about to shoot it (pretend they can speak), "But what if you already shot 100 arrows?" What would be the consequence of shooting that arrow? The beast (nothing against elephants) still standing.

I'm saying is what if you had a surplus?

What if you had shot 100 already? One unnecessary arrow is used, but the beast is brought down.

Then the 101st arrow would be wasted effort.
Unless you're implying that the elephant needed another arrow, in which case, it takes 101 arrows to take down this specific elephant, not 100.

So what do you think a person should do, if he or she isn't sure if 99 or 100 arrows were already used (assume the beast doesn't show signs of going down yet)?

Bring a precise amount next time.

[EquALLity]

But I'm not a liberal, I'm a libertarian.

You can be both; it depends on what you mean by libertarian.

What are you implying? Like say if I advocate vegan lifestyle and are against animal treatment and usage, yet I eat a steak every day, that would make me a vegan?

That's not what I meant. I meant that if you have a vegan lifestyle intentionally, but do not identify as vegan, you are still vegan.

Like how if you don't believe in a god, but don't consider yourself an atheist, you still are one.

Socialism, equality, the rich not well, being as rich, y'know that kinda shit.

That can be done in a representative democracy. That's what Bernie Sanders wants.

Because people are too stupid to look out for themselves.
Wait..

...

Because capitalism can't go unchecked, for one thing.
Because people may not have the means necessary to take care of themselves (financially etc.).

Well the problems you listed...................

What if you see them both equally evil? And there isn't any obligation with not voting if you think the whole thing is bollocks. What's the problem with not participating in something that you, well, don't care about?

It doesn't make sense to see both parties as equally evil.

There's never an obligation to vote; I'm just saying that you should.

You should care about it to the extent of voting. It's not that hard to vote, and it can make a huge difference.

Three words: Obama.

Yeah, Obama lied. But he ended up doing more good than the alternatives likely would have.

Republicans support relatively all policies in favor of big business. Obama may lie, pretending to be more progressive than he is, but he's still more progressive than republicans.

How does politics fix these problems?

Well the reason corporations have that power in America is because of the SC ruling of Citizens United. One way to fix it is a Constitutional Amendment.

Oh. Did I ever imply that I wouldn't try? C'mon, from the way it looks, I don't think i have the ability or authority to change anything. If there was a chance, it would be a .00000000000000000001% chance.

You said you wouldn't vote, and that you've given up on helping humanity...

Bring a precise amount next time.

You totally dodged my point.

If you used one more arrow when there were 100, you'd just use a little more effort. If you didn't use another at 99, because you didn't want to accidentally use a bit more effort, the beast still stands.

The harm done to you from that tiny bit of unnecessary effort is not as significant as the help that one necessary arrow would bring.

If you don't try to help the world because you think you can't, it won't be helped, specifically because you didn't do anything because you thought you'd be ineffective. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and if the Allies had it during WW11, the Axis Powers would have been far more successful. If someone had a similar mindset taking down the beast, the beast would still stand.

[Red]

You can be both; it depends on what you mean by libertarian.

makes sense.

That's not what I meant. I meant that if you have a vegan lifestyle intentionally, but do not identify as vegan, you are still vegan.

oh

That can be done in a representative democracy. That's what Bernie Sanders wants.

Who is what now?
BUT

he could be lying. sure, he may advocate a representative democracy? But how can you be sure that the plan will be exceuted?

Because capitalism can't go unchecked, for one thing.

Hm. And why do you think that is?

Because people may not have the means necessary to take care of themselves (financially etc.).

Then how is this issue expected to be fixed?

It doesn't make sense to see both parties as equally evil.

Interesting. Because I do.

There's never an obligation to vote; I'm just saying that you should.

Why?

You should care about it to the extent of voting. It's not that hard to vote, and it can make a huge difference.

Votes are in!
Giant douche: 30,328 votes
Turd Sandwich: 27 votes

You see the point I'm trying to make here?

Yeah, Obama lied. But he ended up doing more good than the alternatives likely would have.

...Like?

Republicans support relatively all policies in favor of big business. Obama may lie, pretending to be more progressive than he is, but he's still more progressive than republicans.

Well I guess you have a point there. Or maybe I'm just comparing Obama to Bush.

Well the reason corporations have that power in America is because of the SC ruling of Citizens United. One way to fix it is a Constitutional Amendment.

Maybe I should pay more attention to politics. Mainly so I could find out what "SC" is and "Citizens United" are.

You said you wouldn't vote, and that you've given up on helping humanity...

After thinking, this statement is open to interpreation. If you're a conservative and a Republican wins, then Humanity is saved, and vice versa. You can say you're helping your cause, but not humanity in general.

You totally dodged my point.

Maybe. Or maybe you're just too cowardly to turn lemons into lemonade.

If you look at my statement, I actually do bring up a point.

If you used one more arrow when there were 100, you'd just use a little more effort. If you didn't use another at 99, because you didn't want to accidentally use a bit more effort, the beast still stands.

Ok, let's say in this universe, it always takes 100 arrows to kill an elephant, and every hunter knows that. It'll be a wee bit easier to tell when you've shot 100 arrows.

The harm done to you from that tiny bit of unnecessary effort is not as significant as the help that one necessary arrow would bring.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier. But if I were to add on, I think you're saying that you should do it to help the cause. As non-chalant and condenscending as this sounds: Someone else will do it.

If you don't try to help the world because you think you can't, it won't be helped, specifically because you didn't do anything because you thought you'd be ineffective. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and if the Allies had it during WW11, the Axis Powers would have been far more successful. If someone had a similar mindset taking down the beast, the beast would still stand.

There's a difference between an individual and an entire nation. If you need me to be more specific, please, lemme know.

[EquALLity]

he could be lying. sure, he may advocate a representative democracy? But how can you be sure that the plan will be exceuted?

I explained before that you should factor in honesty by analyzing candidates past statements vs. past actions. When you do that with Bernie Sanders, he is the most rational person to vote for.

If you're saying that there's no point in voting for Bernie (or another politician who advocates for good ideas), because Bernie might just be lying and turn out to be worse than a republican alternative, I don't think that makes sense.

That's like saying that we shouldn't be vegan because it might turn out that the animals like to be tortured and killed. We should base our actions off what is most rational to believe is right, in current times.

Hm. And why do you think that is?

Even with government regulations, we have corporations doing horrible things to people.

If we had no regulations, it would be ten times worse.

Then how is this issue expected to be fixed?

By investing in social programs that help people, for one thing.

Interesting. Because I do.

That doesn't make it rational.

Why?

To help the world.

Votes are in!
Giant douche: 30,328 votes
Turd Sandwich: 27 votes

You see the point I'm trying to make here?

I understand; I just don't agree.

Do you really think the candidates are all the same? If you had the choice to choose the President, you wouldn't pick Bernie over Trump?

Maybe I should pay more attention to politics. Mainly so I could find out what "SC" is and "Citizens United" are.

SC is just 'Supreme Court' abbreviated. 'Citizens United' is the name of a Supreme Court ruling. It's the ruling that allows corporations to pour unlimited sums of cash into politics, to use that power to tell politicians how to vote etc..

After thinking, this statement is open to interpreation. If you're a conservative and a Republican wins, then Humanity is saved, and vice versa. You can say you're helping your cause, but not humanity in general.

There's a difference between thinking your policies are benefiting humanity and your policies actually benefiting humanity.

If you look at my statement, I actually do bring up a point.

Your point seems to just be that it's ok not to shoot another arrow, because that's too much effort if you didn't really need that arrow to take down the beast, and I addressed that.

If you don't shoot the arrow, and you needed it to take down the beast, the beast still stands.
If you don't shoot the arrow, and you didn't need it to take down the beast, you just wasted an arrow.

You think the second situation's result is more bad than the first situation's result is good?

Ok, let's say in this universe, it always takes 100 arrows to kill an elephant, and every hunter knows that. It'll be a wee bit easier to tell when you've shot 100 arrows.

What?

Someone else will do it.

>.<

If everyone says that, nobody is going to do anything.

[Red]

A-Alright I'm back
so where was I? oh yeah.

I explained before that you should factor in honesty by analyzing candidates past statements vs. past actions. When you do that with Bernie Sanders, he is the most rational person to vote for.

That doesn't really answer my question.

If you're saying that there's no point in voting for Bernie (or another politician who advocates for good ideas), because Bernie might just be lying and turn out to be worse than a republican alternative, I don't think that makes sense.

I never claimed that, but you have to take into consideration the possibility.
Also, there's a saying coined by TheMysteriousMrEnter that I will quote here:
"Making satire is kind of like running for office. If you only appeal to those who agree with you, then you'll fail every single time."

That's like saying that we shouldn't be vegan because it might turn out that the animals like to be tortured and killed. We should base our actions off what is most rational to believe is right, in current times.

But here's the thing: I couldn't care less about the state of this country, considering the condition it's in right now. Animals I do care about, as they are also sentient beings that are part of nature, and I don't really see the point of consuming animals with the available resources I have at my disposal.

Even with government regulations, we have corporations doing horrible things to people.

I know that.

If we had no regulations, it would be ten times worse.

True, but even the people/things/policies that are there to protect us can be a burden, i.e. the police.

By investing in social programs that help people, for one thing.

Such as?
You didn't explain how they will help in the long run.

That doesn't make it rational.

Interesting. So what makes it irrational?

To help the world.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

I understand; I just don't agree.

Do you really think the candidates are all the same? If you had the choice to choose the President, you wouldn't pick Bernie over Trump?

I never stated all them are the same. I'm just saying when you're going to vote, you have to decide between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
As for the voting question, I'd rather leave this country and go back to Canada. But they have a far right conservative, so I guess the leader always sucks no matter what country.
But if I truly had to vote, I would vote for the one with the intelligence.

SC is just 'Supreme Court' abbreviated. 'Citizens United' is the name of a Supreme Court ruling. It's the ruling that allows corporations to pour unlimited sums of cash into politics, to use that power to tell politicians how to vote etc..

With that information, I can answer your question. Wait there wasn't even a question.
Either way, I do in fact agree that there should be some ways to control Supreme Court, although an amendment may be difficult to get by Congress.

There's a difference between thinking your policies are benefiting humanity and your policies actually benefiting humanity.

I know, aaand how does voting for one guy solve all of humanities problems? For Gaben's sakes we're humans, and we'll always have problems because, well, we're humans!

Your point seems to just be that it's ok not to shoot another arrow, because that's too much effort if you didn't really need that arrow to take down the beast, and I addressed that.

No, it's that it is better to bring a good amount of arrows.

If you don't shoot the arrow, and you needed it to take down the beast, the beast still stands.

Pretty sure I would shoot the arrow. I fail to see your point here.

If you don't shoot the arrow, and you didn't need it to take down the beast, you just wasted an arrow.

Wait, so if I don't shoot the arrow I wasted an arrow?

You think the second situation's result is more bad than the first situation's result is good?

First situation is bad, because you just missed out on lunch. I didn't get the second scenario.

But wait, I don't see how this has anything to do with voting. There has never been a deal breaker between the two candidates. Sept for maybe like, twice.

What?

Everyone knows it takes precicley 100 arrows to keel an elephant.

>.<

If everyone says that, nobody is going to do anything.

And the probability of that happening is?

And for the record, the times when I said something like "Never mind" weren't me backing out, but the fact that I have to explain things into further detail rather than just saying keywords.

[Insert name here]

Seeing as I have a limited amount of time here I'm going to jump in with something quick. Red apple, you said that humanity will always have problems because we're humans, does that mean that we should make no attempt to solve them? What kind of world would it be if everyone was apethetic to the problems plaguing humanity? Nothing would be accomplished.

[Red]

Seeing as I have a limited amount of time here I'm going to jump in with something quick. Red apple, you said that humanity will always have problems because we're humans, does that mean that we should make no attempt to solve them? What kind of world would it be if everyone was apethetic to the problems plaguing humanity? Nothing would be accomplished.

I was implying all of our problems, and the ones to come. Not to say that we never solved any global or economic problems.

[EquALLity]

That doesn't really answer my question.

You mentioned that politicians might be lying, and I was just explaining that that can be factored in, and that you shouldn't just dismiss politics because candidates may be lying. Do you agree on that point?

And was your original question more like, "If politicians are telling the truth, how can we know they'll be successful in pushing for their policies?"
I think the answer to this question is very similar to my last answer. Factor in past political successes.

And also, support a good Congress along with a good President etc..

I never claimed that, but you have to take into consideration the possibility.

Well, you said that Bernie Sanders may be lying as a response to what I said about his good policies.

What do you mean? What possibility? Of lying? I just addressed that.

But here's the thing: I couldn't care less about the state of this country, considering the condition it's in right now.

What?

I don't get what you're saying.

True, but even the people/things/policies that are there to protect us can be a burden, i.e. the police.

Yeah, in some situations, but I don't see what the police have to do with capitalism going unchecked.

Obviously the good benefiting from government programs and policies is more significant than police brutality.

Such as?
You didn't explain how they will help in the long run.

Such as? Are you questioning their existence?
Well, such as Medicare.

How they will help in the long run? You didn't really ask.
By helping people get vital medical care they otherwise would have trouble getting, or wouldn't be able to get.

Interesting. So what makes it irrational?

Like I said, the democrats support more good policies than republicans etc..

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

Which?

I never stated all them are the same.

You pretty much did. You equated the political parties etc..

I'm just saying when you're going to vote, you have to decide between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

Wasn't the South Park episode that's from all about how all politicians are the same? Because a giant douche and a turd sandwich are pretty much equally bad etc..?

As for the voting question, I'd rather leave this country and go back to Canada. But they have a far right conservative, so I guess the leader always sucks no matter what country.
But if I truly had to vote, I would vote for the one with the intelligence.

Not anymore, they actually just had an election and elected a giant liberal.

I know, aaand how does voting for one guy solve all of humanities problems? For Gaben's sakes we're humans, and we'll always have problems because, well, we're humans!

You know? Well your point seemed to be that there's no difference between a rational liberal saying his/her policies benefit humanity and a wingnut saying so, because it's all subjective, and you can only say you benefited your cause.

"After thinking, this statement is open to interpreation. If you're a conservative and a Republican wins, then Humanity is saved, and vice versa. You can say you're helping your cause, but not humanity in general."

What's your point, humanity will always have problems, so since we can't be perfect, we shouldn't try to alleviate some of these problems?
What will voting do? It determines (sometimes only to an extent, though) what candidate will win an election, and therefore future policies that may be passed and impact the world.

No, it's that it is better to bring a good amount of arrows.

That doesn't translate to voting, so I don't see how it's relevant. I'm making an analogy between killing the beast with the arrows and helping the world. You can't just bring in things to the analogy that only apply to one side.

Oh, whoops, I mis-wrote something. Rephrasing:
If you don't shoot the arrow, and you needed it to take down the beast, the beast still stands.
If you shoot the arrow, and you didn't need it to take down the beast, you just wasted an arrow.

Do you agree that the good resulting from the first situation is more significant than the bad resulting from the second?

But wait, I don't see how this has anything to do with voting. There has never been a deal breaker between the two candidates. Sept for maybe like, twice.

If you don't shoot the arrow because you're worried you might be wasting an arrow, and you actually needed to to take the beast down, you failed to take the beast down because you didn't want to accidentally use an extra arrow.

If you don't vote because you're worried it might not actually impact an election, but your vote would've had an impact, you failed to enact the best candidate because you didn't want to accidentally use the tiny amount of effort it takes to vote.

Just like you should shoot the arrow, you should vote.

And the probability of that happening is?

I don't think that position is sustainable.

If that's considered a valid argument ("but what are the odds"), then more people will adopt your mentality of not voting with the assumption that someone else will do it it, and it'll seriously impact politics.

In fact, that not enough people are voting is already impacting politics, and causing very right-wing politicians to be elected.

[brimstoneSalad]

There's socially conservative and socially liberal.
There's fiscally conservative and fiscally liberal.

And those things meaning slightly different things to different people.

This explanation may help:
http://pennspectrum.org/2015/01/27/the- ... -and-down/

Generally speaking, Republicans want less corporate regulation (which is bad for animals and the environment, but arguably good for the economy -- do you care about that?) and less taxes and fewer social programs (do you care?), and more personal regulation based on religion (like banning abortion, abstinence only education, prayer in schools, etc.)

Generally speaking, Democrats want more regulation of the market and corporations (which at least opens the door for more animal welfare reform, and it very much important for the environment, but may be bad for the economy), and more taxes and more social programs to help needy humans (do you care?), and LESS personal regulation (no prayers in school, pro-choice, etc.).

There are Republicans who are more liberal than some Democrats; the party doesn't define the person. BUT it does give you a good ball park sense of what that person probably stands for when not pandering for cash from big companies.

Neither party is perfect, and in reality they are something like 90%+ identical, but one at least in principle is a bit better than the other, and it takes you almost no effort at all to vote; what exactly do you have to lose?