it's not "this election" for you--you reject every election!

the rest is pretense

ah so i see you HAVE being paying attention. so keep up, i have criticized and dismissed the past three elections that i have been posting on SYG yes, but for very serious reasons not petulant trolling. however you never want to have a serious discussion about these reasons because they disagree with your whole ideological approach. instead you like to practice the political bullying that is the hallmark of American politics, to try and antagonize your political opposition in order to try and minimize the weight of their criticisms. however you can accuse me of trolling all you like it doesn't erase the sad reality that i criticize. if it makes you feel better to ignore what is behind the curtain go ahead, indeed i understand you, many immigrants want to try so hard to believe in the American myths and metanarratives.. many immigrants always antagonize Americans for being critical of America. yet the irony is i criticize my country like you criticized your own enough to expatriate. i know my country well, so i speak freely about it and my expectations for it. indeed i haven't left yet

but you make it like it's "this election" and "that election" and "three elections" rather than ALL elections. you reject the electoral system as a whole but play it like you actually care about them and are just disappointed with the choices

a communist or an anarchist will also reject elections but they will be clear and upfront about it and say what they stand for

you just throw the rock and hide the hand though

i don't play to care just because i support my criticism of the electoral process with substantive criticism of the political system. see the problem with you is you WANT me to be trolling because then you don't have to address any of my criticisms election after election. you always try to paint me with the troll brush because frankly you have always been unable to support your own political ideology outright and on its own merits and not in comparison to someone else. see, i am not hiding shit, everyone here knows who i am and what i believe in and why i don't support those things i am against. you know it too. instead of proving your own points you would rather attack my character, a textbook fallacy. i am comfortable with my political beliefs, values, and choices and i don't feel the need to apologize for them and antagonize your own to somehow legitimize my own. if you are that comfortable with your own the cool, maybe after TWELVE FUCKING YEARS and six elections on sYG you and I can have a substantive conversation.

no, you're trolling because you dissemble. you're like "oh, hillary, no good" as if it was hillary with no context--hilary vs. utopia. if only we didn't have her, we'd have utopia!

you criticize both candidates but you don't say what you're for---if you did there'd be a real debate, like-- theocracy vs. representative democracy, or whatever. but you don't, all you do is throw rocks.

so yes after 12 years and 6 elections i know you're for throwing rocks but i've never seen you explicity stand for any political system or ideology or pragmatic stance of any sort. but here we are now, entertain us.

that is the fundamental flaw in your own ideological approach, you think it always has to be an issue of comparison or having an alternative. there is space in politics simply for honest dissent and open criticism. indeed its silly because you can dismiss my criticisms all you'd like, it doesn't make the concrete reality that they address also just dematerialize and vanish.

me? i concede reality and go back to criticism. i could careless if its Trump or Hillary, once the dog and pony show is over i can go back to criticism. indeed its a core tenet of democracy, that constituents don't drink the kool aid

of course there's a space in politics for honest dissent and open criticism-- and that's my criticism of you-- your criticism is dishonest and your dissent is hidden. you don't say where it comes from, or what you stand for, you just say shit like "overlord hillary" and ooh, great accomplishment, random words.

see, a maoist will say that they don't support elections under capitalism because they're a distraction from a necessary revolution. an islamist will say that this is a godless system. a libertarian might say that they don't support big government. and so on and so forth.

take for example chomsky-- a long-time respected critic of the american system. he's an anarcho-syndicalist. if you ask him what he'll stand for, he will tell you. you can consider what he proposes when he denounces what we have, so that you can put his comments into perspective.

but you don't say what you're for, or what is the good that you oppose against the bad you claim to reject. you're just playing games for your self-satisfaction.

a good article on the less informed, but still HIGHLY CRITICAL demographic here,

http://harpers.org/archive/2016/05/t...ynical-people/

look i understand it seems to be your core philosophy that people must be in partisan groups in order for you to believe in their sincerity but i think that is nonsense. people can have a critical perspective without being partisan. its a basic principle of political science, that we can analyze even games where we have no invested interests.


nope, but again i find it cute that you always dismiss my perspective as if i was playing games simply because i don't play YOUR game. its ok !@#$!, you can share your toys too

look i understand it seems to be your core philosophy that people must be in partisan groups in order for you to believe in their sincerity but i think that is nonsense. people can have a critical perspective without being partisan. its a basic principle of political science, that we can analyze even games where we have no invested interests.


nope, but again i find it cute that you always dismiss my perspective as if i was playing games simply because i don't play YOUR game. its ok !@#$!, you can share your toys too

biden 2016

its true. sure, i don't want Trump because it would give the racist/bigot constituents a false sense of mandate BUT in all reality we all know it won't change much about actual policy

well, that's the dumbest thing I've read in a looooong time

is it? what exactly could Trump actually do aside from all his empty bluster? besides its a non-option anyway, i predict Democrats clean sweep of Congress, Senate, state legislatures, and even governors..

mitt romney, an otherwise adult and crntrist candidate with national bipartisan support couldn't beat one of the most divisive incumbent presidents in the modern era. indeed Obama had most staunch relection numbers of past fifty years! if mitt couldnt win Trump will be absolutely roasted, probably carry about the same 35% he has maintained since summer of 2015

this isn't about partisanship. any perspective requires a point of view. you simply hide yours to place yourself beyond the reach of the criticism you claim to practice. all you do is throw rocks from a convenient spot where nobody can throw them back at you.

and of course you continue to dissemble while you pretend to refute this


must be great to know the future with such certainty and without trace of doubt. you could get a great gig in either wall street or las vegas. what are you waiting for?

while probabilities are still clearly in favor of hilary, the election is 9 weeks away and anything from a russian propaganda to something more sinister could definitely shift the probabilities in the other directon

and elections have consequences

electing a born-again who'd launch a crazy crusade against "gog and magog" while giving 300 bucks to every taxpayer had enormous consequences for the middle east and the domestic budget and many social programs

then obama made it possible for me and millions of others to get good health insurance without having to be a corporate employee. thanks obama!

next, of course a white nationalist presidency would be a clusterfuck that would unleash a myriad untold consequences. and i can't predict the future, but i just don't like those odds.

that was a great piece-- so well written, and a breath of fresh air. i'll be reading it again soon

thanks for posting the link!

and speaking of great pieces, and elections having consequences, here's paul krugman from earlier this year:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/op...nces.html?_r=0

i KNOW you are smarter than this. for example, can we criticize a different nation's politics without necessarily supporting on side or another? yes, of course we can. criticism doesn't require offering a viable alternative. sure that would be nice but its not available for every situation even if there is certainly room for criticism in every situation.
and of course you continue to dissemble while you pretend to refute this


its not magic, doesn't require psychic powers or Biff's Almanac. anyone paying any attention to the political trends of past several years can easily make similar predictions, indeed almost every forecast and analysis all agree with my prediction. but you know this already, you do your homework, hence why your arguing with me about it is simply a petty personality contest and frankly i thought you were more mature than that.




it would take something entirely unforeseen such as a mass terror attack or Katrina level natural disaster to cause a 20% shift in votes and indeed if such occurs i doubt "politics as usual" would prevent it anyway!


sure but that implies Trump can win which every realistic projection suggests is almost impossible with the current trends.


meanwhile millions are still left uncovered because of gaps and what is worse because Obamacare punked out of providing an actual government provided plan OR by giving the Federal Insurance Office the same override power that state insurance commissions have over insurance rates to prevent gauging. meanwhile insurance rates for many Americans have doubled or more essentially for no reason aside from lacking regulatory power or from state commissioners caving to insurance companies making healthcare increasingly out of reach for those Americans who are NOT eligible for Obamacare subsidies..


i agreed completely that it would be a terrible mandate for the racist/bigot component of America BUT come on we all know that federal government power are greatly limited by the "checks and balances" for good if someone like trump is elected, for worse when a president like Obama is greatly limited