ilovefuzz.com

Out of the big 4, Johnson seems to be the most reasonable, intelligent, and likely healthy. I may not agree with everything he's done, said, or will try to do but I will likely agree with it as much as I would Stein, Clinton, or Trump.

I'm also pretty positive he won't be dropping over dead.

If your argument for Clinton is "it's that or Trump," what you're really saying is, "the lesser or two evils."

And that title, for the record, belongs to Johnson. Except, y'know, it'd be best of three, but y'know what I mean.

There's no appreciable difference in Clinton or Trump, other than his recent firebrand rightwing rhetoric, he's actually always espoused relatively liberal policies. And despite carrying the banner of the Democratic Party, under the DLC they've done nothing but push Third Way, and Clinton is literally the perfect example of what that is. She's as rightwing as Trump.

Other than a glossy paint job they're the same fucking person. Well, OK, Trump is actually a loudmouth idiot who can't cover it up. At least Bush wasn't quite so bombastic in his fucking mental retardation, so there's that... but still, unless you play dumb wingnut you know what I mean.

I honestly hope this health crisis crap is enough to push Clinton out and give me someone, anyone, better. If there was a valid choice for someone who wasn't just "the lesser of two evils," and was actually "kinda OK, optimistic outlook even" I'd pick that person, regardless of their party.

I want someone who doesn't suck to lead my country.
Or Johnson, because I can get behind his social policies. He down with gay people getitng married. He's fine with your abortions. He'd really like to stop sending our people out to kill, and I'm pretty fucking sure the people we keep killing might kinda like that idea, too. He's cool with marijuana, and y'know while that's not important, who's gonna lie it'd be real nice (and possibly reduce crime, as well).

Fuck it. I'm wasting a vote? So is a vote for Clinton or Trump. This is your chance to speak.

(I think when i started I had a point, but, y'know, rant and shit)

Shit, since i'm going, Johnson on Aleppo: The question he was asked was, quote (with quote marks? is that correct?), "What would you do, if elected, about Aleppo?"

Had his question been, "What would you do about the Syrian civil war?" Or, "What would you do about Syrian refugees?" then he probably oculd've answered without displaying ignorance. Dunno about you, but other than Damascus I can't name a single Syrian city before earlier this week.

Anyways, he gave a coherent and good (to me) answer on what to do once he was asked, paraphrased, "What would you do, if elected, about the Syrian refugee crisis."

seriously. i'ts 3am. shitpost over.

I'm gonna wax asshole and dip my toe back in these waters, but don't throw science in with politics, religion or commerce.
I'm aware that there is a politics around science funding and economics drives what we develop under that umbrella, and that scientific progress, particularly in recent years and months has led us to question the moral value and responsibility of some technologies, but don't do that to science.

Empiricism is freedom from this shit and for the most part, scientists strive to conduct research in such a manner.

We would have made no progress if not for the empirical process, so don't go stick your tin foil hats on and try telling me otherwise.
Science is not free from agendas, that's true.
But agendas interfere with results and real progress, which is bad for business in the long run.

I think we can all agree that politics, religion, trade, and science are the biggest global influences behind only fuzz.

What I hope we can come to agree upon is that our individual understandings of each have the possibility of being wrong.

I understand and respect your sentiment, I think you may have misunderstood my point though. I think we can all agree that past thoughts of science have been proven wrong....it's constantly proving itself wrong, that's essentially it's goal, find out what's wrong to get to what's right. It's okay with proving it's past understanding wrong to get closer to what's correct. We should be too, as individuals.

We should all pursue more accurate understanding and not only crave the pre-filtered noise. Now that it's easier to find ideological bastions, it's becoming increasingly difficult for people to consider straying from those ideologies and consider any other option. Empathy itself seems at an all time low in public consciousness.

I hope that clears up my intention the word "science" 's location in a sentence and words surrounding it doesn't detract too much from the walls of other nonsense.

Ok, I'm with you there.
I think that's sort of where it should be left out of rhetoric entirely as it's the only one of those "pillars" that exists entirely to prove itself wrong and seek absolutes where they may exist, or at least concede that "for now, that's as accurate as we can be".
So, I guess my point was, as science is exceptional to those other things

bloatedsack wrote: If your argument for Clinton is "it's that or Trump," what you're really saying is, "the lesser or two evils."

And that title, for the record, belongs to Johnson. Except, y'know, it'd be best of three, but y'know what I mean.

That's sort of the point of this entire thread.

Johnson, fortunately or unfortunately, has zero chance of being elected POTUS.

Something interesting from a month or so ago, but there was a little less Gary "Gold Standard" Johnson chatter.

Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.

That's because it doesn't work like that.

When you symbolically "pull that lever" in the voting booth, nobody can hear you "scream".

Gary Johnson supports Anti Vaxxers and the Gold Standard.

That's dumb. Hillary Clinton is like the only candidate that doesn't appeal to anti vaxxers, which is just a huge world of pain.

Strange Tales wrote: anti vaxxers, huge world of pain.

Amen.

Nothing's more Libertarian than refusing to recognize how herd immunity works, though.

I leave it to my individual organs to compete for their own immunities.

If fucking Bayer is actually buying goddamn Monsanto,
all this may turn out to be irrelevant.

Or maybe if Trump gets elected I won't have to worry about Bayer buying Monsanto for long?
Who knows....

Gary Johnson can support these nuts.

Speaking of anti vaxers (God I hope none of you are one, pleases say you're smarter than that), a friend of mine recently posted a link to a movie called Vaxxed and was telling everyone in Facebook land that they ought to watch it. I then informed them that it was made by a guy who in fact was debunked in his research (ahem...research...) that claimed that vaccines in fact are linked to autism. The funniest thing is that he admitted later that he lied in the research. Now he's making a movie about it a little over two decades later about how it's still true and people actually believe the motherfucker! He is the front runner for idiots who created a link between these vaccines and autism. God I get so pissed at how dumb people are about medical science.

So minor rant over. I got a flu shot in honor of her dumb ass post.

As far as presidents go, Hillary will find a way to force through the sickness but she may now get indited if they act fast enough. The FBI is being forced to hand over all her records they were too much of a bunch of pussies to convict her on. So we will see how that BS plays out. My money is on her getting away with murder, becoming President, dying and then the end of the world comes because she's the anti Christ and will arise from the ashes as a mythical beast and reign hell fire on us all.