Your video, America's presidential primaries, explained, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 246 Badge!

I've been noticing how trailers are starting to happen as far out as Presidential primaries.

That's a fair point, Eric. I can't say that I know enough about minority group racism to judge.

So yeah, I'm happy to amend my statement that to "not all republicans are racist, but pretty much all white supremacists/nazis are republican".

Huh, still doesn't read great, does it?

Oh, and @worm, I agree. There is a perception of "anti-white social engineering by the left". Of course, it's complete fucking nonsense, but hey, no reason to let facts get in the way, right?

"David Duke, a major KKK leader of some sort, was a Democrat in Congress."

If you're going to post bullshit, you might want to post something that isn't trivially disprovable by 5 seconds googling. He was never a congressman, instead having failed several attempts at both Democratic and Republican presidential primaries. He did become a state representative for Louisiana, but that was as a Republican (he also lost a governship battle, again as a Republican).

I'm not seeking to demonise Republicans here. I don't agree with them most of the time, but at a point, they were a relatively sane political party, before becoming the international laughing stock they are today.

The problem is that they are now beholden to Trump and almost all of them are spineless fucks with a few notable exceptions.

There's two ways to look at this election. One is a dispassionate exploration of why did it happen. Another way is a moral argument on who people should have voted for. What you wrote is a great description of why Trump was elected.

Her reaction to the election is a great moral reaction to people who voted for Trump.

I'm sorry, but she's right.

A "fuck you" "no confidence" vote for Trump is a temper tantrum vote, and I say this as someone who isn't really a big Hillary Clinton fan. Voters shouldn't act like five year olds. How about be adults and do what you've had to do frequently in your adult lives, take the punch in the gut, and fucking do the right thing.

I REALLY REALLY want to go to Europe next year. I saved up the money, I had everything planned out, and I was ready to go. And then my dog got sick and had a thousand dollar surprise vet bill, and then my heat pump died.

I could act like a five year old and go anyway even though I don't have the money as a fuck you to god, the universe, or whatever I think gives a damn, or I could be a grown up and do the right thing - postpone the trip and go later.

I acted like a adult, and did the right thing. Europe can wait.

I wouldn't say this to an Obama, Romney, McCain, George W. Bush, Kerry, or Gore voter, and I could keep going back in history. This wasn't an election where you're picking between equally deadly gruesome poisons. One was a typical politicians, who you may rightfully hate, and the other was a sexist racist completely inexperienced baffoon who bragged about sexual assualt, bragged about how big his dick was in a presidential primary debate, a complete serial liar the likes we haven't seen in politics in the modern era, and I could go on and on and on.

Be a fucking grown up and vote for the only responsible adult in this election, who is admittedly completely unlikeable. It's really not hard, but never put anything past the American voter.

I

I generally fall into the "watching other people play video games is stupid" set, but on the other hand, if someone else enjoys it, I can't think of a good reason why they shouldn't. I do all sorts of stupid things for which the only explanation I can give is that I like it. Good enough.

Unless it's people who watch tentacle rape porn or US presidential primary debates, that's just weird.

Your video, 2016 Republican Presidential Primary Death Quiz, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 6 Badge!

^Fairbs

I do not get my information from Youtube, it's great for entertainment - not so much for accurate Information.

Here are some relevant points I found from a Washington Post article dated April 6, 2012 entitled "Why Ron Paul rallies never translate into votes".

Ron Paul recently held a rally at UCLA, and between 6,000 and 10,000 people attended. The rally itself was a complete success. Yet while Ron Paul has consistently attracted larger, more enthusiastic crowds than his GOP competitors, those events always fail to translate into victories at the ballot box. Ron Paul has never won a presidential primary or caucus.

The media bias argument is nonsense. The media could never hate Ron Paul with the pure passion and ferocity that they despise Rick Santorum. The liberal media loathes social conservatives. They love Republicans who bash other conservatives. This is how John McCain in 2008 and Jon Huntsman in 2012 became the darlings of the liberal media. The media will end up despising whomever the GOP nominee is, and Ron Paul has suffered much less abuse than Newt Gingrich. Every day there are calls for Gingrich, and now even Santorum, to drop out. Dr. Paul does not face those calls.

As for election fraud, the GOP should just agree to give the Virgin Islands and Maine to Ron Paul in exchange for a vow of silence from the movement. The Paul movement uses complaints as their oxygen. All the voter fraud in the world cannot explain Florida, Illinois, and many other big states where Dr. Paul was rejected by more than 90% of the voters.

For those Paul supporters who are still unable to understand these repeated, huge rejections at the polls, the answer can be found right in front of their faces. The Ron Paul movement consists of too many supporters who are completely certifiable. They run up and down the hallways of GOP conventions screaming about revolutions. Decorum is replaced with degradation and debasement.

They shout down speakers they disagree with. They have zero interest in freedom and liberty for anybody except those who agree with them. Decent human beings would just accept this under the rule of "live and let live." The verbal carpet-bombers in the Ron Paul movement consist of some intolerant zealots who will harass, bully, and intimidate anybody just for thinking differently. The same hypocrites who are against undeclared wars engage in undeclared wars against their fellow Americans just for not worshipping Ron Paul. It makes the David Koresh movement look moderate.

Tell a Ron Paul supporter you disagree with his candidate. The responses will be:
1) You just do not understand. You're an idiot.
2) You are an uninformed tool of the political machine.
3) You don't care about the Constitution, freedom or liberty.
4) You are corrupt, bought and paid for, a shill for the status quo or some other powerful, mythical, nefarious entity.

These lines of thought are pure bile. The idea that a person can be decent, well educated, intelligent, have a sophisticated gift of analysis, be a clear thinker, and reject Ron Paul is totally incomprehensible to his supporters.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Don't mean to single you out, Truck.
2-10%? Assuming you mean those evil wealth-hoarders, you do know that 42% of Americans identify as being either "conservative" or "very conservative"?
Maybe the "big boys" don't deserve everything they have, but typically their fortunes are a by-product of providing something valued by consumers.
Modern Liberalism is more concerned with rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. And ignoring the role of runaway spending on a leviathan welfare state in devastating the economy doesn't help the left's case either.


>> ^Truckchase:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Is it really is non-partisan? Or just spoilers for someone? I've seen this on Colbert and PBS--has this been on Faux News?

The difference is that Faux programming=a megaphone for the rich. They have no interest in a level playing field. The concept of democracy is frightening to a group that represents between 2-10% of the population.



Hey QM! I did phrase that incorrectly; it's another case of me taking a paragraph to say what I should probably say in 2 or 3.

I don't think Fox viewers represent 2-10% of the overall populous; I'm right with you there. When I say 2-10 I'm referring to the sector of the population that determines the "flavor" of the channel. They're highly influential by way of the money they throw around to make their viewpoint heard. I'm not saying that this isn't the same with most major media outlets... they're almost all beholden to sponsors of some sort. My point is that Fox is the lone popular media voice for the ultra-rich, and in a vacuum of any media coverage whatsoever the ultra rich wouldn't have the amount of popular acceptance that they currently enjoy. In a democracy free of influence from corporations, unions, and enormous individual wealth I believe we would be free to make better choices for the actual majority.

Be you "conservative" or "liberal", I think we all can agree that we need to get our democracy back in the hands of people free from the influence of financially backed interests.

Edit: and let me just say that I don't mean to infer that this in particular is the answer; it hasn't been thoroughly vetted enough yet. Just working to get there eventually...

Don't mean to single you out, Truck.

2-10%? Assuming you mean those evil wealth-hoarders, you do know that 42% of Americans identify as being either "conservative" or "very conservative"?

Maybe the "big boys" don't deserve everything they have, but typically their fortunes are a by-product of providing something valued by consumers.

Modern Liberalism is more concerned with rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. And ignoring the role of runaway spending on a leviathan welfare state in devastating the economy doesn't help the left's case either.





>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Is it really is non-partisan? Or just spoilers for someone? I've seen this on Colbert and PBS--has this been on Faux News?

The difference is that Faux programming=a megaphone for the rich. They have no interest in a level playing field. The concept of democracy is frightening to a group that represents between 2-10% of the population.

Your video, 'Americans Elect' Group Challenges U.S. Presidential Primary, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thank you for the quality invocation.

In reply to this comment by dag:
*quality discussion here. Using an empowered mass of people online to reach a consensus is interesting to me. (predictably)

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@criticalthud I find some marginal intellectual value in it, to be sure. But we aren't so different than 2000 years ago, it doesn't take much to loose all foundations of order as recent events all around the globe show. While the language we use to talk bout rights and such might have become more sophisticated, the man behind the language lingers on.
Comparing direct Democracy to cooperation is much like comparing your neighbor to your best friend. The former is cooperation by force of conditions (his relation to your own set of circumstances) and the later force of both your desires (your friend's and your own to be in a mutual relationship). The latter carries more weight when you make choices. The challenge I have to myself is how to make a system that harnesses this much stronger force of cooperation to a larger set of people. To be sure, most of the people you would elect don't actually care about you in a very real way. And conversely, neither do 1 million people in California. For me, both representative and direct democracy have a lack of care towards individual members.


thank you for a well thought out and articulate response. it is this kind of exchange that gives me hope. I would submit that we are quite a bit different from greek era consciousness, and that the age of reliance upon myth and superstition is at a close. This may or may not happen in our lifetime but we are and have been turning away from superstition to explain the world favoring and science instead. We are altering both our behaviors and our consciousness to become more rational human beings, and this change is happening at a very high rate, especially now that we are talking with each other.

are we on the brink of destruction...sucking the ecosphere dry? yeah, probably, and we're still too mired in the age of the ego to really give a fuck as a species. but i'm still finding you far more rational than michelle bachman, and I trust my neighbor far more than a politician in the pocket of big pharma.

I would submit that recent event around the globe are not indicative of a loss of order, rather a recognition by the general populace of their continued and growing irrelevancy. Despite the chaos, there is an increased sense of awareness that is developing on this planet.... and rapidly. And once it starts, it is potentially infinite.

people all around the world are quickly figuring out that they are getting fucked and they want to do something about it.
and we are quickly figuring out that we are not god's chosen and the world is not our domain to rule as we see fit. we're just another species, and we are fucking up the planet in a bad way.
and we are modifying their behavior to become more rational beings.
and rationality values cooperation

or who knows. maybe i'm just trippy dippy

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@criticalthud Direct Democracy isn't something to want, ask the great minds of the Greeks. The flailing desires of the mob tend to trample people, not enable them. I don't suppose this is actually an actual step in that direction, but I am seeing direct Democracy as raising in desirably among people, which I think would be a mistake.


I'm guessing greek society was still insanely primitive, although we tend to romance it. I think we evolved considerably, especially in the realms of our ability to exchange information.
But i recognize your fears, and I think at this stage of the consciousness, it would be a grand task indeed.
still, the potential is there for a much higher complexity in cooperation among the species.

>> ^possom:

Similar to http://goooh.com/ that has been around for awhile, only they are focused on Congress, which imo, we need to tackle first.


While you ARE right. IMO what really needs to be tackled is the perception that the President can turn the country on a dime. FAR too many people, left and right, have this perception that The President will either fix everything, or ruin everything.

We're seeing this right now, Bachmann is playing the "OMG Gas prices are so high purely because of Obama, I'll bring them back down again" It's a joke, Obama can't control these things, nor could Bachmann bring them down singlehandedly.

I see this every election. When Bush was elected, everyone was panicked that Roe v. Wade was going to get overturned. When Obama got elected, people panicked about guns. It's fucking ridiculous.

It takes a village. And Congress is the biggest part of that village. The problem is, most people still think it's all about the President...It's not.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Is it really is non-partisan? Or just spoilers for someone? I've seen this on Colbert and PBS--has this been on Faux News?

The difference is that Faux programming=a megaphone for the rich. They have no interest in a level playing field. The concept of democracy is frightening to a group that represents between 2-10% of the population.