"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
10/12/2016 at 01:23 • Filed to: None
1
21|
"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
10/12/2016 at 01:23 • Filed to: None | 1
| 21 |
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
This is why I want to spare such mistakes to my own children by raising them in a foreign country, or better yet not subject them to the bane of existence itself by simply not having any.
RyanFrew
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
10/12/2016 at 01:52 |
|
Are you actually mad about this or is it all sarcasm? I can’t possibly imagine a less relevant story. And I don’t mean it’s irrelevant to Oppo. This is irrelevant to truly everything of substance.
DC3 LS, will be perpetually replacing cars until the end of time
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
10/12/2016 at 02:09 |
|
I mean, can you really blame anyone for going 3rd party this year? Both of the main candidates suck. In past elections I bought the validity of the “lesser of the two evils” philosophy, but this year fuck it. It’s not lesser of the two evils it’s pick the flavor of your poison.
Berang
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
10/12/2016 at 02:30 |
|
I don’t understand the connection between this post and the article you linked to.
Eric @ opposite-lock.com
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
10/12/2016 at 02:38 |
|
I haven’t read the story, but you do know that millennials have typically been more closely aligned with the libertarian party’s positions than any other party since they were young teens, right? Nothing about this surprises me at all.
Millennials are generally non-interventionists (or even isolationists), pro-personal-freedom/socially liberal, anti-war-on-drugs, fiscally conservative, etc. This has been true since at least the mid-1990s when the first were starting high school...
Variance
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
10/12/2016 at 03:48 |
|
So... what’s the problem here? I’m not sure I follow...
Audistein
> Eric @ opposite-lock.com
10/12/2016 at 04:05 |
|
Millenials are not generally fiscally conservative. The vast majority of young people don’t advocate for small government or very low taxes the way the Libertarian Party does. Romney was a fairly reasonable candidate as far as Republicans go but the 19-29 age vote went 68% to Obama and 30% to Romney in 2012.
While I would not say that the Democratic Party directly represents Millennials either, the majority are closer to the Dems, and then the rest are closer to Republicans, than anyone being a Libertarian.
As for Johnson, he is actually very far from every other Libertarian party candidate. I hate to use their language specifically but he’s essentially a “Republican who smokes pot”. The core Libertarian Party, as represented at their national convention, does not believe in drivers’ licenses or photo ID in general. It is also in their platform to abolish the IRS, EPA, FDA, FTC, Federal Reserve and basically everything else. This does not represent Millennials at all.
I feel like people have this very idealized view of Johnson and of the Libertarian party that really doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation. The Libertarian party takes a fairly extreme stance on most issues and isn’t what people want it to be.
facw
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
10/12/2016 at 05:20 |
|
Just goes to show you can never trust anyone who’s infatuated with the AMC Gremlin:
random001
> facw
10/12/2016 at 06:54 |
|
You shut your mouth!
|
facw
> random001
10/12/2016 at 06:58 |
|
I will admit that color scheme is pretty flattering. I’m more of a Pacer fan myself though.
|
random001
> facw
10/12/2016 at 07:00 |
|
All is forgiven due to pacer love.
ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
10/12/2016 at 07:55 |
|
Voting for Johnson -in this election- as a form of ‘protest’ is just expressing white privilege.
He won’t win.
Hillary is not perfect, but she will do far more to improve the lives of anyone who isn’t white, male, hetero, and ‘Christian’ than Johnson would , if he had any chance of winning. Which he doesn’t.
Voting Johnson is instead helping increase the potential that the Orange Racist wins, which will undo hundreds of years of hard fought social progress for everyone ‘other’.
The criticism of the system that people make in their choice of Johnson is valid. And I agree with most of it. If this were any other election I would encourage that choice. But, the future of our society hangs in the balance with this one and Hillary must win in order to keep this country together. Then Johnson fans have four years to make changes at local and state levels.
The changes they seek will not come from the top down. But from the bottom up.
KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
10/12/2016 at 08:17 |
|
As a US citizen, there has to be a better and cheaper way to find the worst people in the country.
Or choices are effectively between two pathological liars, and Gary Johnson.
As someone who is LGBT, and someone who is willing to work hard to be successful, really none of the options are appealing.
My choices are higher taxes (but no additional services that I would be able to benefit from, because means testing), tacit endorsement of homophobic loony tunes by a uncouth louse (a non starter for me), or a pot smoking establishment Republican. *None* of those are actually appealing in any way.
Hence why I’m wishing that Canada would adopt me, but I’m not a visible minority, I have a college degree, and a US passport. That means I’ve got no chance, sadly. Only plus is that I do speak English and French with fluency (considering I studied in France for a term).
So I’m stuck voting for the pot smoker.
KatzManDu
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
10/12/2016 at 08:50 |
|
LOL! Hilarious.
I read that news a few weeks back (about MJH going full-on libertardian) and fell out of my chair. Clarissa Explains Milton Friedman is now the TV show.
As an old fart born in 1978 and raising my kids on foreign soil (US transplant to Belgium as of right now) I don’t even know what to say.
and 100 more
> ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
10/12/2016 at 09:27 |
|
If this were any other election...
The problem is, this is just like every other election, only the buffoons are more buffoony this cycle.
|
Eric @ opposite-lock.com
> Audistein
10/12/2016 at 09:28 |
|
I will say that I never really cared for Johnson, and I’m surprised he nominated the first time, let alone a second time in a row. He has done more to damage the reputation of the party than anyone before, because people now deride it as merely a fringe of the republicans, which is far from the truth.
The party has also fractured severely in the last 10+ years, after an influx of anarchists that saw it as an easy target for peddling their agenda. My great aunt that was a very early member of the party probably wouldn’t recognize or belong to it today. That “core” you speak of didn’t exist before sometime in the 2000s, where they oppose all government instead of focusing on small government. The IRS and Fed have been targeted for abolishment since founding, while the other three are necessary evils because they deal with things only the government can manage. They might not exist as agencies, but their rules would be codified for enforcement through the judicial system. The problem with being such a small party with universal ballot access is that your conventions can be bought by those with an agenda and they can change/skew your platform.
Like most election years in recent memory, 2008 and 2012 were pretty unusual. I predicted it correctly in 2008 when I told my dad, “from the perspective of my generation, the lesser of the two evils is Obama”. He couldn’t quite wrap his head around it. You see, since the 1990s my generation has suffered most severely from a massive recession (dot-com bust, which didn’t clear for 95% of the country until about 2005) and what can only be described as a depression for us (2007-onward, which we are barely starting to pull out of as the economy is on the edge of another recession). I’ll be surprised if Hillary pulls a similar percentage of 18-35 year olds (which is about as close to the Millennial age group as you can define right now, and does get skewed by indoctrination in most colleges). Romney was also an extraordinarily weak candidate from many perspectives.
The thing is that I’m still absolutely surrounded by millennials with the same mindset they had in the 90s. I work for a company with the lowest average age I’ve ever seen (among them, I’m considered a bit old), and you’d be hard pressed to find a more representative group. They look in some ways very conservative and in others very liberal. These align closely with the historic positions of the party.
|
ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
> and 100 more
10/12/2016 at 09:48 |
|
No. It isn’t even close.
To pretend that Trump is a qualified candidate is ignoring blatantly obvious facts and believing a lie.
Clinton is flawed. But she is NOT the great evil the right-wing propaganda machine has made her out to be. Trump should not have been allowed to run. He is categorically unfit to be president.
Johnson has no idea what he is doing. He doesn’t know anything about the rest of the world, and his comments related to other world leaders will not win us any friends. The US already doesn’t have a great international reputation, Johnson would not help that at all. And as much as people want to return to our pre-WW1 isolationist culture, we can’t. The US is not the only country on this planet, and everyone on Earth needs to work together to keep this place habitable.
You want better choices? Then get invloved at your local level and work up from there. That is the ONLY way you are going to see the changes you desire occur.
crowmolly
> ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
10/12/2016 at 10:05 |
|
No. It isn’t even close.
Absolutely.
Like probably many people on here, I know some people that are lifelong conservatives and some of them have voted that way since the early 50's.
Just about every one of them is saying FUCK THAT GUY and is voting for Hillary.
That’s not typical “The system is flawed, etc” behavior.
Switching your vote after decades of consistency is a very big deal.
|
and 100 more
> ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
10/12/2016 at 10:20 |
|
I mean, this is just like every other election in the sense that a remotely competitive 3rd party candidate will only ever serve to destabilize the voting structure, which has a two-party mentality at its core. I’m all for MORE options, since I’m not satisfied with either of the Dem or GOP candidates. But realistically, if Johnson were my guy (or Stein, or Denver the Dinosaur, etc...) they would have to do like Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders and try to wrestle the nomination away from more established candidates within the Big Two.
I mostly agree with your assessment of the candidates. That being said, Trump as president is likely to polarize the country if he doesn’t cut-and-run and leave Pence in charge. Clinton would simply be more of the same establishment politics we’ve seen for years, albeit likely with a softer touch toward social issues, for better or worse. Regardless, I’m still not convinced that Clinton is a good choice, considering the legal controversies over her head, and frankly the fact that she will clearly be more of the same. I agree with Johnson on some aspects, but I agree, he’s not president material.
Keep in mind, Obama (whether you liked him or not), was mostly ineffective as an agent of change, not by his own fault, but because of resistance-for-resistance-sake in the Republican House and Senate. You can bet that Clinton will face the same, for at least her first two years.
|
ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
> and 100 more
10/12/2016 at 10:28 |
|
More of the same can still be ‘fixed’.
Trump is a disaster that will never fully be recovered from.
I get you want to fix the system. That change will ONLY occur from below, starting at your local level. Pushing for a top-down solution will only lead to the same issues you brought about Obama.
|
and 100 more
> ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)
10/12/2016 at 10:40 |
|
I’m not disagreeing with you. AT ALL.
Trump doesn’t represent the Republican ideals at all, let alone any cogent, realistic, adult-level reasoning. That the Republicans took on Trump as their candidate shows that they have some serious issues within the party, since they couldn’t even agree on someone who’s an ACTUAL POLITICIAN with ACTUAL POLITICAL EXPERIENCE to represent them. To say Trump is unfit to run should have been a “duh” statement, and yet...
However, i do agree on your idea of bottom-up change. The plants won’t grow any better if the soil is bad. There is far too much emphasis on the presidential circus, and if we weren’t to taken with the cult of celebrity, we wouldn’t have to be considering a Trump presidency as an option.
|
Audistein
> Eric @ opposite-lock.com
10/13/2016 at 02:46 |
|
I’m a little closer to the younger end of the millennial spectrum so perhaps my perspective is a little different. I am old enough to remember the dot-com crash and the 2000 election but not quite old enough to have been following politics or reading news at the time. My parents didn’t have much free capital invested in the stock market (they were mostly putting into their mortgage at that time) so we didn’t really feel the effects of the crash as much as other people did. That said, we lived in the Bay Area so the effects were all around us. I’m not entirely sure what your point is about how the crash affected you, but I don’t think that I saw this crash pushed anyone towards supporting “conservative” fiscal policy. If anything, usually crashes or recessions lead to a movement of “liberal” fiscal policy, with the most extreme example being the creation of the New Deal and Social Security after the Great Depressions in the 1930's. (Side note: According to the traditional/dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative this categorization of fiscal policies is strangely backwards.)
Now days my dad mostly has the attitude something close to, “I do wish the Republicans would actually lower my taxes but the stock market seems do do better under Democratic presidents and I like their social policy far, far better.” As I am fortunate to be climbing the tax brackets, my attitude is approaching that too.
I think it definitely depends on where you are in the country geographically as for what most millennials are supporting. Where I am now, I’m mostly surrounded by wealthier, highly-educated millennials who believe in “liberal” fiscal policy. While some parts of the country may have more fiscally conservative people, the polling and statistics seem to show that the majority of millennials mostly support liberal policies in general.
Considering the disaster that Trump is, I wouldn’t be surprised if the same percentage as before goes to Hillary, even though the media says that her approval rating among youths is low. There are plenty of young people who don’t particularly like her but are definitely voting for her. (Ask me how I know...) Johnson is becoming more of a protest vote for millennials than anything else.
As for abolishing the IRS, I don’t see it happening any time in the next 50 years, at the least. There are way too many people who benefit from keeping the tax code convoluted and borderline broken, and as long as those interests are around the IRS will be here too. Also many of the simplifications of the tax code proposed would be extremely regressive and incredibly harmful for the majority of Americans.
As for the Fed, I think it would take either some unimaginably massive cataclysmic event or just a very, very long time until it seems that it can be done with. As much as many don’t like it or see it “being used as a political tool” (I’ve actually heard that), the Fed is a major stabilizing force for the economy and the stock market, and that’s not just in the US, that’s for the whole world. With the current setup of international finances, global lending markets would go insane without the Fed, let alone domestic markets. Too many banks are too leveraged to do without the Fed, and automated computerized trading seems to be making volatility the norm. It seems like we need stability more than ever so the Fed is probably going to stick around for a long time still.
As for the Republicans, I know that this is a horrible way to put it, but we’ll just have to wait and see what rises from the ashes after the Republican establishment slowly burns down over the next couple decades as their most fervent, super right-wing supporters essentially die off. What rises from the ashes could very well be a more socially tolerant but fiscally conservative party that is more like the idealized version of the Libertarian party that everyone seems to always be talking about. Still wouldn’t necessarily be my personal party of choice, but it would certainly be a much better balancing force in the government and lead to more rational legislation.
For something more lighthearted, I wanted to share this segment on this year’s Libertarian National convention from a (liberal) comedy show. They’re definitely going a bit out of their way to show off the stranger elements (it’s a comedy show after all) but that said most of that stuff you wouldn’t see at the RNC or DNC.