Name someone from your preferred political party who you don't particularly care for.

[Rex Kwon Do]

Number one for me is Peter King, the Congressman from Long Island. A loathsome human being. IRA supporter. I can't believe my fellow citizens repeatedly vote this guy into office. He's absolutely terrible.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I truly never thought I'd see the day Republicans thought it was okay to attack a dead soldier's family.
The GOP has lost its soul.

That's how I felt when the Democrats raised no fuss over drone striking American citizens (rationalizing it with it happening outside our borders, as if that's tantamount to a warzone).

So where do we turn?

Trump is attacked rightly so, because he's a fucking megalomaniac and has no policy positions.

...

Clinton on the other hand can be characterized as dishonest and a flip flopper, which is fine if you want to do.

This distinction makes a big difference to you?

 

[MicroBrew]

Hillary
Debbie Wasserman Schlutz
Madelline Albright
Bill Clinton

 

[forum poster]

Overpressure won't be able to read this (he decided to wall himself off to counter information), this is directed at you, the reader:

Our time on this Earth is limited. Don't waste your precious and valuable time trying to rationalize with people who do not wish to be rational. Don't waste the "Red Pill" of truth on those who would spit it out and call it poison.

If you wish to leave a mark on the intellectual history of humanity, debating time wasters is not how you will achieve it.

You're really getting a bit over the top with your strong emotions about @Jack V Savage, from the looks of things.

You're getting even crazier when your thinking leaving posts in a sub-par political section of a MMA sherdog forum is going to "leave a mark on the intellectual history of humanity".

 

[japman40]

Paul Ryan

That dude creeps me out.

Creep You out how?

 

[ucunc156]

This distinction makes a big difference to you?

To me, yes. Outside of the TTP (which was definitely at least a little bit pandering), hillary flips on stuff over years. Trump flip flips within the same week, but that isn't even what I mean by no actual policy. Trump basically says hes going to make things better and defeat isis, but doesn't really provide any answers as to how. His deepest policy point is that he is going to "eliminate waste". You may not agree with hilldawgs positions or approach, but she has a clear strategy and idea, even if it changes over time or she doesn't hold up her end of the deal. Trump just blathers on about how he'll fix things without any actual detail.

 

[berimBOWLoh]

i dont have a preferred party. i actually listen to different ppls positions and base my vote off that.


crazy, i know.

 

[ucunc156]

You don't have much reading comprehension.

You're less capable of taking a joke than Jack is. You truly are insufferable.

Ugly culture here, no doubt.

That's why decent people have an obligation to say something when people like Kafir do their thing.

Jack, I gotta ask, why do you go so hard against Kafir, and Anung, who are faily nice guys, but never really go hard against guys like Thurisaz or Rex (less so- plus I always confuse him and Judo) or any other hard right winger thats a total dickwad on this site?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

You're really getting a bit over the top with your strong emotions about @Jack V Savage, from the looks of things.

It seems quite a few posters agree with me.

If you haven't had any interactions with Jack, then you wouldn't know that any disagreement with Jack will be met with insults and impugning your motives and/or character.

All I did was quit replying to Jack's posts, I didn't even ignore him, just quit replying. For over a year now, Jack has been replying to my posts with no reply back. Jack has been having a spiteful conversation with himself (not me) in that time.

You're getting even crazier when your thinking leaving posts in a sub-par political section of a MMA sherdog forum is going to "leave a mark on the intellectual history of humanity".

We're all leaving ideas out in the Public Square. If you don't think ideas are contagious in the digital age, then you're not paying attention to the world around you.

 

[Thurisaz]

You're less capable of taking a joke than Jack is. You truly are insufferable.

Try funny ones sometime, you might be surprised.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack, I gotta ask, why do you go so hard against Kafir, and Anung, who are faily nice guys, but never really go hard against guys like Thurisaz or Rex (less so- plus I always confuse him and Judo) or any other hard right winger thats a total dickwad on this site?

Anung is a really ugly dude. Most of my interactions with him are just him playing dumb or outright lying about my positions and me trying to correct the record or him accusing me of being a secret agent or something. Impossible to discuss anything rationally with that guy. Read the thread on betting to get a sense of his game. http://stg.forums.sherdog.com/threa...-by-securing-1-million-online-donors.3071033/

As far as Kafir, he's repeating really ugly smears, and he should know better. It's one thing for a total mouth-breather to say that stuff, but when it comes from a normally decent poster, it's something that needs to be repudiated. Too much, I think people just sit back and let that stuff go or engage in a blind bothsidesism about it, and that really A) blinds people to stuff that genuinely fits the description (note that Clinton is actually one of the most honest politicians out there, and Trump is the most dishonest we've ever seen by a huge margin, but people use the same terms to describe both of them) and B) furthers the degradation of the culture, which I really believe is leading to something terrible (like political violence). The sight of an angry mob calling for mob justice against the presidential nominee of the other party was chilling.

I don't even read Thuriasz's posts or consider them response-worthy if I catch them. That applies to a lot of posters here. Anung used to be in that category, actually, but his constant following me around finally got me responding. I don't think Rex is fully serious (I actually respect him too much to see him as the committed Trumpster he comes off as). Not saying his trolling, but it's partly tongue-in-cheek, IMO.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It seems quite a few posters agree with me.

If you haven't had any interactions with Jack, then you wouldn't know that any disagreement with Jack will be met with insults and impugning your motives and/or character.

All I did was quit replying to Jack's posts, I didn't even ignore him, just quit replying. For over a year now, Jack has been replying to my posts with no reply back. Jack has been having a spiteful conversation with himself (not me) in that time.

This is a fantasy, of course, and you will not be able to cite any "spiteful conversation." Further, you're the guy who was saying that people who disagree with you about taxation levels want to kill you. So this is impressive projection.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Listing politicians from any party that I do care for would be a lot more manageable.

 

[Jack V Savage]

i dont have a preferred party. i actually listen to different ppls positions and base my vote off that.

crazy, i know.

Not crazy, just ignorant.

People in the same party agree on more than 90% of issues, while people in the other party disagree with them about 90% of issues. There's a whole structure of position forming that is highly dependent on ideology and tends to flow down from thought leaders. Just for example, Trump literally doesn't even know what the Federal Reserve does, but you know he's going to favor tighter money because that's what the right-wing intellectual apparatus wants. Clinton could probably briefly explain arguments for different approaches to monetary policy, but those will be things she remembers liberal economic advisers explaining to her, and we can make a very good guess about what her ultimate positions (and thus the type of person she'll appoint to set it) will be.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Great leaders deserve more than others and the ability to get rich.

After all that is what Trump fans are all about. It is okay and cool for Trump to do whatever because it is expected from cool leaders. Oh but not Hillary?

I don't like either, I'm just going after Hillary ITT because she's from my preferred party. I'm probably going to vote Hillary in November tbh.

 

[berimBOWLoh]

Not crazy, just ignorant.

People in the same party agree on more than 90% of issues, while people in the other party disagree with them about 90% of issues. There's a whole structure of position forming that is highly dependent on ideology and tends to flow down from thought leaders. Just for example, Trump literally doesn't even know what the Federal Reserve does, but you know he's going to favor tighter money because that's what the right-wing intellectual apparatus wants. Clinton could probably briefly explain arguments for different approaches to monetary policy, but those will be things she remembers liberal economic advisers explaining to her, and we can make a very good guess about what her ultimate positions (and thus the type of person she'll appoint to set it) will be.

true. i should just blindly vote based off what party a candidate is in. that would be best for all involved. thank you for clearing that up for me.

i should also be a good little sheeple and accept that 2 parties is all truly free ppl deserve. why waste time on election reform and the like when the perfect system is already in place??

It is cute you believe the "90%" stuff yet both parties are funded by the same ppl..... yea man, totally different. day n night. Choice A or choice B for life!!! No middle ground. No way to agree with some of this and some of that. Nah, all or nothing, baby.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

Not crazy, just ignorant.

People in the same party agree on more than 90% of issues, while people in the other party disagree with them about 90% of issues. There's a whole structure of position forming that is highly dependent on ideology and tends to flow down from thought leaders. Just for example, Trump literally doesn't even know what the Federal Reserve does, but you know he's going to favor tighter money because that's what the right-wing intellectual apparatus wants. Clinton could probably briefly explain arguments for different approaches to monetary policy, but those will be things she remembers liberal economic advisers explaining to her, and we can make a very good guess about what her ultimate positions (and thus the type of person she'll appoint to set it) will be.

So its your contention 90% of issues come down to either an "A" or a "B" solution jack?.......come on now, you know the world tends to be a lot more nuanced than that.

Where am I left if I think my gay brother should get to marry his partner, like owning AR15's with plenty of 30 round magazines, think the EPA serves a useful function, disagree with forcing me to buy insurance from a for profit entity, Think affirmative action is largely bullshit ect the , disagree with an imperialistic foreign policy and an overblown military?

I don't agree with ANYONE 90% of the time, not my friends , not my wife. Frankly its kind of sad that you do , not indicative of critical thought imo.

 

[Trotsky]

I'm not a Democrat, but I'm closer to them than Republican.

Least favorite Democrats:

1. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Tim Kaine (yes, this ticket is fucking terrible)
4. Cory Booker
5. Claire McCaskill
6. Joe Manchin
7. Chris Koster
8. Dianne Feinstein

 

[thebluerider]

i'm a GDI, but i feel the need to point out what a horrible person Harry Reid is. he intentionally made the US Senate as dysfunctional as possible. the man is scum.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

To me, yes. Outside of the TTP (which was definitely at least a little bit pandering), hillary flips on stuff over years. Trump flip flips within the same week, but that isn't even what I mean by no actual policy. Trump basically says hes going to make things better and defeat isis, but doesn't really provide any answers as to how. His deepest policy point is that he is going to "eliminate waste". You may not agree with hilldawgs positions or approach, but she has a clear strategy and idea, even if it changes over time or she doesn't hold up her end of the deal. Trump just blathers on about how he'll fix things without any actual detail.

I hear ya. I'm not sure though that saying one thing and doing another is all the superior to making no claims. Probably much more comforting though, so there's that.