Rank #937 on CommentsLevel 316 Comments: Wizard
OfflineSend mail to Her Block Her Invite Her to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||11/16/2010|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#7475|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#366|
|Content Thumbs:||165 total, 292 , 127|
|Comment Thumbs:||17475 total, 18897 , 1422|
|Content Level Progress:|| 50% (5/10) |
Level 16 Content: New Here → Level 17 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 23.8% (238/1000) |
Level 316 Comments: Wizard → Level 317 Comments: Wizard
|Times Content Favorited:||20 times|
|Total Comments Made:||2385|
|Favorite Tags:||is (2)|
Artist, poet, author, gamer, alcoholic.
Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
latest user's comments
|#1 - That ******* hair.||06/08/2016 on Gorillas make bad babysitters||+5|
|#1 - Picture||06/08/2016 on Are we there yet?||+1|
|#1 - Picture||06/08/2016 on Didn't know I needed this...||+4|
|#2 - Picture [+] (1 new reply)||06/08/2016 on Savage||0|
|#2 - Picture [+] (75 new replies)||06/08/2016 on Feel the Bernout||+756|
#216 - juanhitkill (06/09/2016) [-]
It is my understanding that Trump attacked the Iraqi war openly during a public debate; I get that he's a clown and a seemingly irresponsible person, and a bad politician (as far as I've read, but consider the following:
If you believe that 9/11 was an outside job you may as well believe in a purple unicorn tap-dancing, because the story is full of laughable gaps and inconsistencies; but it did have a profit for the Rothschild family, as both Afghanistan and Iraq Central Banks were obtained after the US invasion. Trump speaking openly against that in a moment when he should be kissing the boots of men in power of the media instead, and if the rumors that he made money with Gaddafi (a known death enemy of the Zionists) basically means that A) He's not on the Rothschild's payroll and B) He probably has something against Zionists; something that many famous politicians and people have warned us about for so many years (and many have died in accidents).
Call out the tinfoil hats all you like, but I'd put my eggs on that basket.
#234 - anon (06/09/2016) [-]
As much as I hate calling the average person retarded, the average person is retarded. If every single person in America who dislikes the 2-party system even a little bit voted for a single third party candidate that candidate would not win, or receive anywhere close to even a third of the vote.
#100 - hotschurl (06/08/2016) [-]
Even as a German, that's exactly how I feel about this whole election. If i lived in the US I'd probably have left the country by now.
inb4 Germany is even worse with all the refugees - yes, lots of mistakes have been made by our government, but my life has so far not been influenced in any way by all that
#190 - anon (06/09/2016) [-]
because it's not that much better anywhere else
#112 - carlonord (06/08/2016) [-]
My life =/= the country nor the future lives of Germans.
Imagine if you were now the minority in your own homeland, and the new majority made it known that your way of life is to be eradicated or irreparably changed, sounds like an invasion no? I have newfound empathy for the native americans. I'd have more, but so many of them are useless buggers.
#114 - hotschurl (06/08/2016) [-]
80 million Germans vs ~2 million refugees is far from an invasion, and by now the government has realized they need to take steps to reduce immigration, see the Turkey deal (which was yet another mistake in the long run, bat that's a different topic...)
As I've said before, lots of mistakes have been made and continue to be made, but the whole thing is being blown way out of proportion, and change for the better has started, still slow but it's there
#118 - carlonord (06/08/2016) [-]
I'm aware of the numbers, I'm going off studies and reports saying things like "Germans ages 19 to 30 will be a minority by 2030 if immigration rates remain the same", police cover-ups, and the bizarre effort to integrate Islam into Europe which frankly is insane. I'm in Canada and even I've had issues with muslims here, I was even told by a black girl to be careful and watch my back in Toronto, cause they they're out to get white people nowadays, she said to me.
I'm aware its blown up, but immigration and demographic change isn't instant, its slow like a frog in boiling water. I just want the west to be aware of its identity, and to not bend over backwards for the sake of tolerance and diversity. The world gets stranger and stranger each day.
#166 - hotschurl (06/08/2016) [-]
Well, "if immigration rates remain the same" means something like 1 million immigrants per 3 months for the next 15 years, which is ridiculous. That was the rate at the apex of the immigration, right after the borders were opened, which was a mistake, even Merkel realizes that now. Much more is being done now to regulate immigration, as the recent elections were a pretty clear wake up call for the big parties that the people don't like where they're going with immigration politics.
#121 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
Brah, he's German; I'm sure he knows what an invasion is.
#3 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
#295 - jinxleven (06/13/2016) [-]
Voting third party doesn't work because of the spoiler effect. I can't explain it well myself so here is a like to the wikipedia page for the spoiler effect en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect. I also have included CGP Grey's video on our voting system which also briefly covers the spoiler effect.
#97 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
The tragic irony is that no matter how much Americans hate the two-party system, they hate change of any kind - even if it's for the better - even more.
#82 - jouten (06/08/2016) [-]
There is nothing people can do about it. The only way to break out of this system is to get rid of the first past the post voting system and go for a democratic proportional representation where you only get to rule if you've got over 50% of the votes and if the parties don't manage to do it they need to form coalitions to represent the interests of as many people as possible.
#81 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
im voting third party. hell if theres a forth, id be even better.
#56 - elcreepo (06/08/2016) [-]
Sadly popular vote doesn't mean shit, delegates do
Plus it's kind of hard to vote for the third party when you don't even know their names
And the two parties control a vast amount of wealth and are literally able to buy their way into the election and into the household of every American
Every year people keep cheering on, if they've heard of em at all, the poor independent candidate who's having a hard time finding enough cash to put his name statewide let alone nationwide
And every year he drops due to financial constraints
#21 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
#133 - kingpongthedon (06/08/2016) [-]
True, but that's only relevant if you live in a swing state. I live in South Carolina, my state's electoral votes will inevitably go to Team Red. A vote for Team Blue is just a waste of a Tuesday afternoon in November. However, if I vote Team Purple I show my discontent for both Team Red and Team Blue and give Team Purple more credibility in the next election.
Here's how that plays out in practice: Realistically, I agree with Clinton on most policy issues. That said, I strongly believe she is a terrible person and the embodiment of all that is wrong with politics. I think Trump is merely a bad person, but I think his domestic policies are naive and his international policies would devastate our global standing. From a purely political analysis, I believe Clinton to be the better candidate by far and hope she wins. My vote, however, will go to the Libertarian party. I actually believe electing the Libertarian party would be the worst option due to their insistence on a Medieval economic policy but I strongly agree with them on a number of other key issues and I believe giving them a louder voice would help shape the next debate in a better way.
#47 - tenju (06/08/2016) [-]
But similarly to the prisoner's dilemma, it's that mentality that causes the problem in the first place. If everybody voted for who they wanted because they wanted them to win, not because they thought they would win, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. You can't make the whole world vote for who they want, but the solution can start with you, and you can only hope that people follow suit. I'd rather have a chance at neither of them winning and risk on that I dislike more winning, honestly.
#158 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
>Voting for third party actually damages your other closest political representative.
What does this mean?
#168 - noschool (06/08/2016) [-]
it's the spoiler effect ,example im a communist, so im ambivalent towards dems but i hate republicans, if i vote for the communist party who will definitely lose then i am hurting myself because my vote could have been used to support the democratic party, who actually has a chance of winning. a good example is how the dems won the 1912 election because teddy and the actually republican candidate split the vote.
#188 - anon (06/09/2016) [-]
Why do you care that your "other closest political representative" doesn't get a vote because you voted a third party? If you do not actually like that "other closest political representative" and then spend your life complaining about the two parties, aren't you simply contributing to the perpetuation of the two party system?
#218 - noschool (06/09/2016) [-]
our system literally prevents 3rd parties because you need 270 electoral votes, If no candidate gets a majority of the Electoral Votes, the election for President is decided in the House of Representatives, where all notion of representative democracy goes out the window by having each state, regardless of population, get one vote for who they want to be president. so our system doesn't allow for more than two parties unless we just want the house to decide every time. reps and dems will always get some voting 3rd party is just asking the house to choice for you so at that point why vote? our system sucks but it the reality of the situation is the only logical option is to strategically vote for the dems or the reps cause any other vote is a waste.
#277 - jarelk (06/10/2016) [-]
Even if that weren't the case, if you have a system where the party with the most votes gets ALL the political power, and you move your vote to third party, then you're increasing the likelihood that the party you LEAST agree with gets all the power. Saying people should just vote for who they agree most with is not a thing you can demand, it's against their interest if they're on the opposite side of the most popular party. Because naturally they'd prefer to have someone in power who shares some of their interests, than none.
#278 - noschool (06/10/2016) [-]
i don't know why you are telling me this, i already said that when i told anon "it's the spoiler effect ,example im a communist, so im ambivalent towards dems but i hate republicans, if i vote for the communist party who will definitely lose then i am hurting myself because my vote could have been used to support the democratic party, who actually has a chance of winning"
#30 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
#9 - guillem (06/08/2016) [-]
My country has been like that for about 40 years, then a few months ago most of the vote was more or less evenly split between 4 parties. Now elections are being repeated due to the inability to strike a ruling deal, and I'm happy as balls the two-party system has died.
#57 - elcreepo (06/08/2016) [-]
And in Germany under a depression the Nazi party was still able to form a third option
It's sad though that the two parties in America have so much wealth they can literally silence any third option.
I hate the party system. It's so very corrupt and I've no clue how we're gonna fix it. Because it's supposed to be candidates stating their opinions and then backed by those who agree, but instead it's a party that forces a candidate to support shit they don't agree with for funding.
Meanwhile the independent and moderates get jack shit.
#260 - guillem (06/09/2016) [-]
Well, your avatar sure is creepy, good job!
Yeah, I agree with you, but until the independents, who are probably the majority, fund a party and start their own shit, nothing will happen. People have believed the "I can't do anything" mantra for too long. Yes, they can, their votes are the ones who put people in office, they should start using them wisely. It would be hard as balls but not impossible, a party just surged like that in my country and now it's going to be the second in number of votes (if the polls are correct)
#157 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
So vote for a third party. Problem solved.
#185 - anon (06/09/2016) [-]
It's not the same effect. A third party with 2% of votes is better than that party with 1% of votes.
>but my chosen candidate cannot win with such votes so therefore, I will do nothing and save 20 minutes of my life
You are part of the morons who complain about the two party system but won't actually do something to change it. Voting for your most ideal third party will contribute to that change
#227 - noschool (06/09/2016) [-]
our system literally prevents 3rd parties because you need 270 electoral votes, If no candidate gets a majority of the Electoral Votes, the election for President is decided in the House of Representatives, where all notion of representative democracy goes out the window by having each state, regardless of population, get one vote for who they want to be president. so our system doesn't allow for more than two parties unless we just want the house to decide every time. even when that doesn't happen it just spoils the vote. if a lot of people vote for the tea party that's less voters for the reps and you just gave away the election to the dems.
#89 - anon (06/08/2016) [-]
|#5 - Picture||06/08/2016 on American women fatter than...||0|
|#6 - Comment deleted||06/08/2016 on Chubby Bun||+4|
|#82 - Is FJ logging anyone else out for no reason??||06/06/2016 on Boom! HEADSHOT!||0|
|#63 - Roku best character.||06/04/2016 on avatar comp||+2|
|#30 - Picture||06/04/2016 on Notch owning people again||+23|