Posted by Coco

lol you'd think that would discourage people from voting.

Jury duty is beyond boring and you only get $40  

Ok as someone who voted Trump...I agree we can't just "bomb the hell out of ISIS" so to speak. If it were that simple, it would have been done already. And Trump is only using that rhetoric to grab the GOP nomination, before moving back towards the middle if he gets the nomination, as is typical for any candidate on both sides. That said, we need to do something about this group.

Today, America as a whole is more concerned with being liked than respected, and to be honest I hate that. Other nations used to hate us because we were superior to them in so many areas, but they'd have to respect us. Now we look at what goes on, and it's clear that ISIS and other terrorist organizations see us as weak. They know that so many of us are afraid to go and attack them, and we comply so that we don't look like the bad guys. I'd rather be hated and greatly respected than liked and not respected.  

i think we need 4 more years of Bush!!!  

Kasich is my guy. I wish he was more popular than the extremists.  

Posted by Areo

I'm not doing my country a disservice if I choose not to vote. If I don't feel represented by the two candidates, then why should I vote?

If it does happen that it's Clinton and Trump, then I won't vote. Neither of them are who I want representing the country, and my vote should reflect this.

That doesn't matter because one of them will become president. It's like if I put two foods in front of you, neither of which you like... You will get hungry enough and eventually you're going to eat the one that you dislike the least.
If Hillary gets the nomination (and she will) and every Bernie supporter chooses to be stubborn and not vote, they're leaving it up to everyone else to decide a fate that will affect them also. Voting isn't about exclusively voting for someone who you agree with on all policies, it's assessing the candidates and picking the one that you think is the best fit out of the field.

It's like people who call themselves Agnostic when asked about religion. Just being "Agnostic" isn't a thing. It's not even logical to have no belief at all (unless you're mentally incompetent). You're either an Agnostic theist or an Agnostic atheist. Everyone has a belief or a preference to things, it's just a matter if they'll accept it, act on it, admit it, etc. So yes, I think if you refuse to vote on the grounds that your preferred candidate didn't get the nomination, you're essentially refusing to accept that one of them is the better choice.  

Posted by Thallen

That doesn't matter because one of them will become president. It's like if I put two foods in front of you, neither of which you like... You will get hungry enough and eventually you're going to eat the one that you dislike the least.
If Hillary gets the nomination (and she will) and every Bernie supporter chooses to be stubborn and not vote, they're leaving it up to everyone else to decide a fate that will affect them also. Voting isn't about exclusively voting for someone who you agree with on all policies, it's assessing the candidates and picking the one that you think is the best fit out of the field.

But then how will they sit on their high horses on reddit as they call out all the bad things the president does while shielding themselves by claiming it's not their fault because they didn't vote for them??  

Posted by Fulgore

Today, America as a whole is more concerned with being liked than respected, and to be honest I hate that. Other nations used to hate us because we were superior to them in so many areas, but they'd have to respect us. Now we look at what goes on, and it's clear that ISIS and other terrorist organizations see us as weak. They know that so many of us are afraid to go and attack them, and we comply so that we don't look like the bad guys. I'd rather be hated and greatly respected than liked and not respected.

Wth the thing is that we wealthy countrys probably made the first move.It isn't about any country looking at all weak, ISIS run off being hated they want wars it helps them recruit more, they actually want the 'bomb them and have done with it' because basically for years! USA/UK/Russia etc all bomb in the middle east hitting at isis yet isis people roam around in communities so you bomb them you hit civilians that just creates more terrorists for the future.. even what everyones doing now doesn't really help - hitting target locations oil places etc where isis get funds from..this just decreases any progress of that country/area meaning more poverty and less wellbeing for people there.. Congrats we've just created another method of recruitment, die in poverty or fight against. You'll never destroy a terrorist group fully as they will always be hatred because of how the other half live & for what we have done ourselves.  

Trump defeated Vince McMahon and Vince McMahon defeated God. So by proxy Trump > God. PigParty needs to stop wasting his time going to church and worshiping God. He should instead worship Trump.  

Posted by Crono

But then how will they sit on their high horses on reddit as they call out all the bad things the president does while shielding themselves by claiming it's not their fault because they didn't vote for them??

I'm pretty interested to see what becomes of /r/sandersforpresident (and /r/politics, since it's essentially the same thing) when they finally give up  

Posted by *Dae

PigParty needs to stop wasting his time going to church and worshiping God. He should instead worship Trump.

He's a Satan loving freak like Illusions and both need to be put out of their misery for the good of the rest of the God-fearing world.  

Trump wins boys
He owes it all to value town
 

Mr. 5hift sir, I wholeheartedly agree with you. PigParty and whatever backwards, pathetic shìthole he lives in should also be “bombed to oblivion” so we can eliminate his barbaric subspecies from existence.  

Posted by PigParty

I'm not trying to undermine the issues of the female-male pay gap, but it also doesn't appear to be quite as substantial as the media portrays it to be. I'd also like to point out other factors such as asking for raises, setting work hours, getting more paid leave (if you have children or something) and many other factors that play into the salary of each individual employee. I understand that there definitely is a problem, and in some situations it's much bigger than others. Here's a good CNN article about the pay gap for men and women.

Spoiler

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/12/pf/g...equal-pay-day/

My problem with the pay gap is simply the fact it exists. One could argue, "It exists because women don't have as many positions in power as men", but then, why don't they? Because of education? Then why don't women complete the same amount of education as men? Because of children? Why aren't so many father helping out, or rather, why is it preventing women from succeeding when it is a natural biological process? The latter is especially sexist and awful. Regardless, the very fact it exists means that there is something causing the pay gap - which isn't equality. If it was between a few women and men, of course it would most likely be on factors such as experience, work hours, and asking for raises; but the very fact it is occurring on a global scale is the issue that needs to be addressed.

Posted by PigParty

I understand she's a woman and faces challenges that males don't.
However, most people face their own special challenges, but it doesn't mean they should be treated differently because of it.
She should focus on her overcoming them, rather than focusing on her facing them because she's a woman. It's fine to focus on the issue, but not when she uses that issue to try to get people to vote for her simply because there's a gender issue, and she's a woman. I'm short for my age, and I face different difficulties that tall people don't face, but I shouldn't be treated differently because of that. I respect how someone overcomes the challenges, but not the fact that they simply had them.

She is focusing on overcoming them???? She's running for President.
The gender issue is one she is at the center of, as are many other women - How on earth would one run for President and not address huge issues that impact one's life every single day.
I understand what you're trying to say with height, height and gender are insanely different things. Gender identity is one of the major classifying characteristics of a person - it's on your passport for heaven's sake. We participate in activities, treat other people differently, and live our whole lives based on genders. While short people might be not be picked for an NBA basketball team, the reason is because their skill level doesn't make up for their lack of height - Or rather, those who are tall have an advantage and so are picked. There should be no difference between a man and a woman - yet they are treated differently because why? Women are inadequate compared to men? No we are not! Women shouldn't need to overcome the modern day image of a woman, yet we are forced to because the image exists. It shouldn't exist.

You say people face their own individual challenges, however think of it this way. The patriarchy of societies* oppresses practically every single woman on the planet, giving them a barrier to overcome. By Clinton advocating for the getting rid of these issues, women (and hopefully men!) are 'combining' to attack the issue full force, breaking down the barrier. As I said earlier, an individual being oppressed is their own problem. But when it becomes a global trend, obviously there's a problem that needs to be fixed.


*(disclaimer: no, I'm not a feminazi because I said this. I believe in feminism. google it)

Posted by PigParty

As for abortion, it's a big issue for me too. I believe, however, that abortion should be illegal unless the health of the mother is at risk, or if it was from rape or incest. The thing is, if a male and female choose to have sex, they know what could come out of that. All actions have consequences. Even if theh wear protection and something happens and the girl still has a baby, that was one of the known consequences of their actions. Even if you believe that the baby isn't alive until it's born (or whatever stage of pregnancy you believe), you can't deny that an abortion is murdering the potential of an innocent human being. Yes, the potential is still being murdered. That baby (or its potential) has no say in whether you end its life. People only find it OK because they don't see the human being actually formed and conscious of its surroundings yet. If you stab a pregnant woman, you will be charged with the murder of her baby, but apparently having an abortion isn't killing a baby? I don't believe a child should die because 2 people went through with sex, but disliked the consequence that came from it. I also seriously believe that while the female is the one who carries the baby, it's not just her child. The father has as much rights and responsibility to the child as the mother does. I don't view this topic through my religion, but I still can't understand why people are OK with murdering a child (or its potential) because they want to have sex, but don't want to deal with the consequence of their actions.

If abortion is killing a human baby, then surely periods do the same thing. Why not, as soon as a girl gets her period, we impregnate her to become a baby machine until she hits menopause. That way, no baby would ever have to die!

With all seriousness, the decision to have a baby is already incredibly hard, let alone choosing to have an abortion. Should we really be making it harder for women, by 'damning them to hell'? We only would ever want the best for our children, and sometimes, that's by aborting them and preventing them from a life of suffering.
No, I can't deny it could possibly might be murdering the innocent baby's potential. But more often, isn't abortion typically performed on mothers who wouldn't be able to provide for their children.

Sometimes people say that you could be 'aborting the child who would cure cancer'. But, what if the mother wasn the one? If the baby was born, the mother would most likely have to quit her job to support a baby she didn't plan to have - she'd have to adjust her lifestyle to accommodate the new child. In an unplanned pregancy, most of the time you are either choosing between a quality life for the mother, or a meager life for the mother and child.
As I said before, abortion is pro-quality of life.

It is also pro-choice. The father has the ability to run away, yet the mother is stuck with a child.not everyone would want to take care of a baby stranded on their doorstep, yet this is what anti-abortion does.

Posted by PigParty

Just to emphasize, since now I have read all of your post, I believe the father is obligated to the child just as much as the mother, and laws should be passed to require that. Not just financially (unless the mother and father agree to that).

I 1000% agree with you.
Though, my problem is that fathers can physically run away from the child. The mother cannot, unless she purposefully causes (a dangerous!!!!!!!!!) miscarriage. I don't believe fathers should run away, but they can. Mothers can't.

Posted by PigParty

As for Obama and race relations. I won't get too involved with that, so I'll keep it fairly short. I think Obama has only hurt race relations because when there have been incidents when a white cop kills a black person, he comes right out immediately and condemns the cop, without knowing the entire situation. For example: Ferguson. I think someone with his power and presence should be more cautious before he ruins the life and image of a cop, and the entire police force. (I couldn't help myself from getting into it more... sorry) The police are in the wrong sometimes, but it's sad because some communities have "cried wolf" so many times in situations that race has nothing to do with, that they actually undermined themselves the racial issues we have in America today. It's hard to take anyone seriously now when every time it's a white cop and a black person, they call it racism. Hell, I've even see them call racism when a black cop shot a black guy. Who knows, it may very well be racism, even then, but they undermined the whole issue that we can't take it seriously anymore. It's really sad to be honest, because it's an issue that should be worked on to get it fixed.

I feel like that's more Buzzfeed's doing tbh. Obama has proved, that though it's clear to most of us, black people perform well in positions of power. Clinton being president would prove same. she has so, so much experience in politics, and wonderful policies.

Posted by PigParty

As for politicians or people in general changing their stances... I'm going to tell you right now that my opinion has nothing to do with the video posted about Hillary Clintom allegedly lying, or Hillary Clinton in general. I haven't even seen the video posted on this thread. My opinion on changing stances is that I don't understamd why when someone changes their stance, everyone attacks them. I actually respect people listening to other sides and forming a different opinon from that. However, politcians often change their stance to simply side with the majority of the people. When they do it for that reason, that's when it becomes an issue. We elect them to represent us, so while I understand them changing to side with the majority of the people they represent, we also elect them for who they are individually. I would respect them if they changed their stance and said it was because the majority of the people agreed with that stance, and noted that their opinion may not have changed. But they seem to generally change their stance simply to side with the people to keep their votes and popularity, which creates problems.

Just as society advances, it's only natural for individuals to change their stances as it becomes more socially acceptable, and people aren't so negative towards those who support it. While it's understandable people attack politicians for wanting to win votes by changing stances, it's important to remember they are people too. Clinton has been in the spotlight for over 10 years (probably 20 or something crazy like that). That's a long time. Just because at the beginning of those years, she didn't support gay marriage, doesn't mean she can't change her mind to reflect how she's matured and how shes valued. She has always valued the bond between two people, but now (actually for around 5 or so years!) she realises that gays can be celebrated to, and so supports that.

Posted by PigParty

I think I covered everything you said Plat That was a lot...

Right back at you, and I even threw in more ahaha. I think I covered everything, I'm not too sure though  

Posted by *Dae

Mr. 5hift sir, I wholeheartedly agree with you. PigParty and whatever backwards, pathetic shìthole he lives in should also be “bombed to oblivion” so we can eliminate his barbaric subspecies from existence.

Glad we can see eye to eye on this subject.

God bless.

Posted by ReD s.

Trump wins boys
He owes it all to value town

Badly photoshopped head town?  

Colin's results are awfully close to a certain individual...