There's a new /777/ up, it's /Trump/ -
Make America Great Again! Check it out. Suggest new
Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7:
.m3u file. Music via
, images (1).jpg
I find your attempt to equate Gary with the other two offensive.
He's the only sane one.
He's even said he would quite smoking for the duration of his term if elected.
Also, he climbs airwolfing mountains. He can't be too stoned.
Of the three, I find stoned most acceptable. I'll vote for Gary too, because the alternatives frighten me.
The anarchist in me was driven to attack all of the candidates. I probably should have included Jill Stein, but the only single-word description I can think for her is GREEN.
She got arrested for disrupting some construction site recently (consistent with her Green values, no doubt) so LAWBREAKER might be apt.
and re: feeling the Johnson: "What is Aleppo?" is still better than "let's bomb the shit out of Aleppo and have our family members in our military die from prolonged fighting in that general area too."
I'll vote Green.
Her biggest flaws are her anti scientific positions on medicine, vaccines, and nuclear power.
But seriously, she was arrested for protesting a worthy cause.
In that case, the arrest is more of a positive than a negative.
Good luck fighting the Zika virus with more reiki funding.
>He's the only sane one
because you have to be sane to support tpp and continuing dubya's interventionist global agenda
Maybe, but I think committing crimes is more Hillary's defining characteristic.
>"What is Aleppo?" is still better than "let's bomb the shit out of Aleppo
This. Absolutely this. It's fine; he's not the first candidate nor would he be the first president to make such a slip. It's not like anyone in the US had ever heard of Allepo until two years ago.
>continuing dubya's interventionist global agenda
wtf? skip to 2:08.
Trump will get in and wipe 7channel from this earth.
Have a sense of history?!
Not on my watch.
Mods got guns, but we have ideas
In Canada we worry that we have not helped people enough
In America you seem to be worried that you have not hatted enough
Have I hatted black people enough? Should I hate Mexicans more?
Should I read a non fiction book as only 19 percent of the 237 million people that live in my country do?
Am I dumb enough to vote?
Evening I say is a lie and you want to belive it.
Because people have lied to you your whole life, and nothing got better.
So here I am telling you what you want to hear; no niggers no Jews. Best you've head in a few years.
There is a black man in the White House. I'll change that. You don't have a well paying job. I'll change that. You don't own a house. I'll change that.
All I need from you is blind obideance.
Will give you all you can see, all the kingdoms of the world
Again, the Mods took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
All this I will give you
if you will bow down and worship me.
And Anymous said will you be with me when I die a billionaire, will you be with me when many die by what I've done.
Better not to take the hand if you want to live with yourself
That is to say I've bought another gun and another box of ammo in perpetration for the next election
Oh, so he's changed positions again? Damn son, sorry I can't keep your flip flopping candidate's positions straight. Maybe if he smoked less weed he'd remember what he said last time.
Never happened. The libertarian agenda is an isolationist one. Getting involved in foriegn wars or humanitarian crisies that we have no right to involve ourselves in, that we stand to gain nothing from, and that seem impossible to resolve is a bad idea. Not that we can just up and go from the middle east, though--which he has suggested in the past--you probably took out of context some remark he made about resolving the problems were're already in before we pull out.
maybe you've been smoking too much pot too. he's not libertarian, he's republican.
he only got put on the ticket because the party decided this year to put someone on the ticket who might get more than their usual 1-2% of the vote. unfortunately it looks like he's only going to get 7-8% of the vote, primarily because libertarians keep saying he's a libertarian.
when your party's official headgear is fashioned from aluminum foil, drawing attention to your party to the detriment of the candidate isn't a winning strategy.
Do you realize this is his second presidential bid on the Libertarian ticket? He's officially been a Libertatian since 2012.
I can see how you might be confused. I used to think of the Libertarian Party as a Republican Party splinter myself, but this election has really made the distinction for me. The Libertarians actually value the small-government ideals the Republicans pretend to have, while the Republicans only really value white votes and sticking to the status-quo.
Yeah, I can understand how you were confused before.
I mean, Republicans want to elect people to government who will do absolutely nothing in office in the name of small government, in the hope that the government collapses. Then the wealthy can do whatever they want with the rest of the country because there's no functioning government left to stop them.
While Libertarians want to destroy the country by dividing it into a millions of fiefdoms where nobody cooperates with anyone else and everyone has their own set of rules. Essentially their goal is to make sure the the first world ceases to exist in the United States, because nobody in the first world is going to want to deal with millions of contrarian regulations that you have to comply with in order to ship your goods across all those lines of fiefdoms. e.g. your shipment can't enter my fiefdom if it contains contraception, yet you have to enter my fiefdom to reach the fiefdom inside it.
In other words, Libertarians are wealthy Anarchists who are lying to themselves... and never took a single psychology course.
You make a good point, but I'd rather have a broken anarchy than a broken democracy.
>I'd rather have a broken anarchy than a broken democracy.
Anarchy is broken form the get go, at least with democracy you have a chance.
It's like getting 'wolfed by an aids-ridden channer of the 4th. You can either do it with the 'doms and lube or without. Either way it's unpleasant but at least there's a veneer of protection when you choose the former.
Democracy is just as broken. Most people can't even make informed, rational decisions about things that affect just their household, yet we put whomever is most popular with these neanderthals in charge of entire countries. Then we wonder why politics seems to go hand in hand with corruption, deceit and outright incompetence.
They can't even make rational decisions about things that affect them, personally.
Women voting for people who force them to undergo invasive medical testing in order to exercise their constitutional rights, for example.
Or voting for a party who wants them to undergo literacy, means, etc. testing to exercise their right to vote.
Yes, she has flaws, but all the other candidates I disagree with more fundamentally.
You might also say anti science, which is her biggest flaw in my eyes, but that's not one word like the others.
She's also antinuclear, which is a real shame, and she's also not very pro space, which is a real disappointment, but none of the other candidates are much better in those areas.
I don't actually know why I want crazy to win....
I'd run against him.. no I wouldn't
>>757213I'm glad the first time I ever voted was for this man. I'm gonna vote again later this month.
Remember to go "monitor" a polling place that's mostly frequented by minority voters first though.
Otherwise all those brown people will form a massive endless queue voting 50,000 times each before you can show up to catch them in the act.
Also, try to remember that black people don't actually look alike.
>>759184What are you talking about? All black people look the same
Morons vote Killary
Actually, if you are a moron, you are more likely to be conservative than a liberal.
Therefore if you are a moron, you are more likely to vote for Duck.
>>759406Actually, if you're a moron you're more likely to be a liberal, or democrat than a republican or conservative. Therefore if you are a moron you're more likely to vote for Shillery. Kill yourself libfag.
Not according to multiple peer reviewed studies.
Educate yourself, conservative.
I hate Hillary Clinton.
But I hate republicans more, so airwolf em, Hillary it is.
Run this ship aground, Hitlery!
Stop. The only reasonable thing for you to do is vote third-party. At least to throw a wrench in their two-party program.
The Zika virus has not been an issue before, why is it today? Could it be because GMO pesticides were used in the area where children got "small heads" prior to the spraying? hmm.. not sure, quite sure zika isn't an issue worth talking about.
The hillbots are in here.. why? what did we do to deserve this? tell me! NOW!
You are why we can't have nice things
I can tell you, I am not wealthy but I still am an anarchist.
And btw.. why the airwolf would anyone wealthy be a anarchist for a practical reason? Don't people understand that if you have no government the dollar is dead, all the savings are dead.
I don't think you've thought things through.
It's still crazy that GMOs are a bogeyman. Almost all of today's crops have been genetically modified at some point in human history. If you disagree, make me a bowl of grits out of teosinte.
Oh wait, the kind of genetic modification caused by selective breeding is somehow different because at least the plants got to airwolf each other first ("yeah, take your pollen bukkake, slut!").
But the chemicals. /s
>Implying ancaps are anarchists.
she's a huge bitch, obvi
>throw a wrench
throw a wrench, get Duck elected, whats the difference.
It's sad that these types of threads aren't allowed anymore...
, Tiny Riiiiiiiiick.jpg
What do you mean?
Gary's non interventionist.
I already tried to make that point during the election, when it mattered. No one cared what was true then, and they aren't going to start caring anytime soon. Reason and sense lost the war. The world's most powerful country is controlled by the people who control its least competent constituents; its political spectrum has been reduced not just to black and white, not just to conservative vs liberal, but to HURR and DURR--and this time the durrs won, for all it matters.
I could explain exactly what the Libertarian ticket was about this year, but then I'd just end up being banned for discussing /civ/ in /b/.
Friends don't let friends get banned.
I tried to do that too, again back during the election when it mattered. I even provided links for people to go and read all about it themselves. No one cared what was true. Everyone has a particular input protocol these days, allowing only certain information in from certain sources; any information even slightly contrary to their expectations is immediately rejected and any that complements or reaffirms their most baseless opinions is automatically adopted.
This is why /civ/ is a bad idea. Discussion of civics is no longer possible--even on an anonymous imageboard--because people are just impossible to talk to now. You can't have a discussion, only an argument, and no one can ever win it. There was a time when people studied oratory and rhetoric in order to debate and convince their opposition to change their point of view, and you would hear politicians using it when they competed for office and it made them look competent and sincere. Now it's all about shock and awe, muckracking and self-aggrandizement; debate over the best policies going forward is limited only to those that score brownie points with specific demographics--they pit the american people against each other like divorced parents use their kids in a fight.
>Discussion of civics is no longer possible--even on an anonymous imageboard--because people are just impossible to talk to now.
Yes, yes, that's right. Accept that there is no hope of any kind of meaningful discourse and just give up on everyone and everything. Why should you dare to presume that you can help change anything? It's far better to walk away and just let the loud shouty voices shout loudly at each other without any other facts or narratives to get in their way.
What else would you have me do?
If we get a woman right after a god forsaken nigger, I'm gonna be pissed.
Something, that's what. What you propose does nothing to fix the problem and everything to accelerate the problem's spread. Even a one in a million chance of changing the world to be in your image is better than the zero percent chance that you'll get what you want by doing nothing.
>What you propose does nothing
I have proposed nothing.
There is no practical solution. All I can imagine is brutally murdering every single person who uses words like "conservatard" or "libtard" in arguments and stringing up their bodies by the toes in public places, each with a sign nailed to their skull describing the exact offense to rhetoric each has commited. ie, "Disparaged an argument as 'straw-man' without explaining the basis of said fallacy." or "Discredited an opponent ad-hominem, then the sources upon which their argument was based, and even the authors of those sources all as conspiracy theorists." or "Used an emotional appeal to wax over proof of serious incompetence and criminal intent in their political patron's actions."
How's about it, will you help me string them up? You know as well as I they cannot be convinced to think for themselves, they cannot be made to distinguish right from wrong in their patrons, and they cannot be made to keep silent their idiocy against overwhelming truth. They are the majority. We have a lot of work to do.
>You know as well as I they cannot be convinced to think for themselves, they cannot be made to distinguish right from wrong in their patrons, and they cannot be made to keep silent their idiocy against overwhelming truth.
and you were? How?
If you know the answer to that then you know how to show others the right way.
A lifetime of standing on the outside, never fitting in, and social rejection. I never learned to join the herd. I'm not sure it's something I can teach.
Sure it is. Social structures are surprisingly flimsy if you know which things to break, if you feel that the only way to spread your views is to derive a sense of self-worth and ideals independent of anyone else.
>spread your views
Thing is, I don't want to spread my views, that would just be pissing in an ocean of piss. I want everyone to develop their own views. I don't want to tell anyone what they should think; I want them to be more aware of how they think, to be able to resist the influence of propaganda and dogma and forge their own values and make their own judgements about the "facts".
I'd like other people to be capable of seeing the spin in every news report and distilling them down to the truths that can be verified, to be interested in holding those in power and publication accountable to a higher standard of honesty and service, and to be aware of humanity's potential. It's not a political ideology I could write essays about and give lectures* on.
*Actually I do imagine myself giving certain people lectures from time to time, but always flanked by mercenaries with AK-47s. Basically I'd hold them hostage, explain how they are personally responsible for making things worse for everyone, and have them commit to change or die forthwith.
So you're saying that you want people to be free to come to whatever conclusions that their research and life experience lead them to, but it's possible for them to look up and live the wrong political decisions which is why you fantasize about kidnapping them, telling them how they're wrong, and giving them the choice of repentance or death. That almost makes sense, but look on the bright side: at least they went to the effort of coming to an incorrect conclusion, unlike all those mindless sheep that don't even have the decency to try.
At least it's not purely political. Thanks to how reality works, the distinctions between politics and philosophy are hazy enough that you can call your beliefs either one, depending on your audience.
Yeah, I don't think I should ever run for office. I know it's naieve, but I'd like to think that a society of highly-independent, self-sufficent, free thinkers wouldn't opt-in to such corrupt leadership and could eventually free themselves from corporate tryanny. Of course, humans being inherently corruptible, there would be mistakes, failures, and betrayals. I imagine that a people who could ignore propaganda wouldn't suffer the indgnity of seeing people who abuse their trust remain in the upper echelons of society--that a public capable of seeing them for who they are would bring them down and cast them out. We already live in a time when secrets are nigh impossible to keep--is it too much to hope for a time when the truth would be impossible to spin?
It is. I know. The truth is it's getting worse. Reality matters less now than ever in human history. That is why I fantasize about giving such harsh ultimatums to our present leaders--I fear it may already be too late for mankind to survive this modern dark age, if not for some sudden and dramatic action to turn the world around.
Why vote for Gary Johnson, and not Jill Stein?
Although I was fully aware it made no difference, I honestly didn't think she would be prepared for the multi-faceted job of running the most influential country in the world. Say what you will about Gary's competence, he seemed to me the more likely of the two to have a grasp of the responsibilities and complexity of the office. I don't think the American economy would have survived administration by the Green Party with their single-issue policy base while I would have been excited to see the country reshaped by the Libertarian Party's broad reformation agenda--pretending either ever had a chance of winning. Unfortunately, even if he hadn't gaffed himself into oblivion, no significant number of people are ever going to vote for a third-party president. What the 2016 election demostrated, if anything, is that no matter how shitty the two major parties and their candidates are, we will always elect one of them.
Actually my first choice was John McAfee, until I actually bothered to look into him. I was enthusiastic about having the first-ever technologically competent president, but it turns out that in addition to being tech-savvy he's also a complete basket case who probably takes narcotics of his own innovation. The Belizean authorities never figured out exactly what "herbal supplements" his lab was cooking, but it is odious that he attempted to coerce the police into shitting down the local drug competition.
No shit people are suspicious about her. The Clinton Foundation, Home Email Server, classified documents, pay to play. If she gets in, that will just further Oh bummers legacy and continue the downfall of the United States as the foremost first world superpower.
>If she gets in
I find your use of the present tense confusing.
It's over and she'll never run again.
she will if she doesnt die from being an old bitch
Good luck with that. Rumor is that if everything goes according to plan she'll face stiff primary competition from Andrew Cuomo and Kanye West.
Glad to hear it. I haven't been watching the news lately.
I'm trying to think of someone who's run a second time for President after losing the first time... the only one I can come up with, within the last hundred years, is Nixon. I'd have to think longer if you want to include stupid shit like running in a primary.
She ran, she lost, time for you to get over it and find a new pinata to hit.
Hint: One's currently our president.
Also, if anyone can get their hands on a clown suitcase, I'd very much like to see what's inside of there.
Not sure if your trying to troll that he lost the election and is yet president or actually mistaken that he ran and lost at some point in the past. Duck never actually ran for president before 2016, although he's been joking about doing it since the 80s. This is why no one took him seriously at first--he's the boy who cried "running". Unfortunately for us he was serious this time and while he may have lost the popular vote, that never mattered because "democracy".
Did you look into third-party candidates? I know Gary Johnson was making his second run and I think Vermin Supreme has run several times. Anyway, it's pretty clear that you don't stand much of a chance after failing once. It is, after all, the most televised competition in the United States; everyone sees how hard you lose.
reagan lost in 76 before winning in 80
bush I lost in 80 before winning in 88
the presidential primary system didn't exist before the 1970s so i don't know wtf century ur talking about
>Not sure if your trying to troll that he lost the election and is yet president or actually mistaken that he ran and lost at some point in the past. Duck never actually ran for president before 2016, although he's been joking about doing it since the 80s.
Not sure why you insist on talking out of your ass when these facts are easily found on google. He ran in 2000 under the Reform Party.
Here's a picture of the popular vote representation, you charlatan
>talking out of your ass
Guilty as charged. Although, >>762338 is still wrong, because he didn't lose--he withdrew after winning a single primary--and I am still partially right: he set himself up not to be taken seriously as a candidate by doing that (in addition to joking about running since the 80s). I guess I missed that being in High School.
>picture of the popular vote representation
This does nothing to change my interpretation of american democracy as a farce.
>This does nothing to change my interpretation of american democracy as a farce.
Lol you gotta better idea, asshole?
Inb4 the proletariat rises to lead themselves to ruin.
Sure, elect the president with a simple count of the majority per each congressional district in all states. Each state gets a total number of votes equal to its number of districts (eg, the same as it's number of representatives in the House); the president with the clear majority of districts is the winner.
I'd be for this if every district contained an equal number of citizens.
This would require either populous states to get more representatives or ghost town states to get fewer. The system in place now is skewed towards rural voters and only growing worse thanks to gerrymandering in red states.
That's how civil wars get started, smart guy.
>The system in place now is skewed towards rural voters
Eh, I'd say that's a good thing. I know "every vote counts", but I'd rather see it skewed towards people who actually have an investment in America. ie owning land.
In 'murrica, we start our civil wars when a President issues executive orders exceeding his authority.
>if every district contained an equal number of citizens
In theory they do, and the gerrymandering aims to disenfranchise the Democratic party by keeping their voters a minority in the districts by dividing their population centers into multiple districts while encompassing a dominant population of Republican voters. But yes, this system needs to be fixed and the people who took advantage of it should be lined up in front of the Washington Memorial and shot. Then we can maybe have a little Democracy.
>In theory they do
Within a state they do, however not all state districts represent the same number of people. For some reason if you live in a state with a lot of people each district will contain more people than a state with fewer people. Yet each district still has one representative.
Make the house of representatives actually represent the people. What we have now is, like the electoral college, a holdover from the era of slavery intended to make less populous slavery states hold equal power to more populous non-slavery states.
Slavery was abolished, it's time to abolish its remaining vestiges.
GWB thought that too. That's how we ended up with the great recession. Maybe its time to move beyond white male property owners. I know that will make Bannon have a good old crying fit but airwolf him.
More of this in the future. AntiFa smashing the windows of a Chase bank before they do.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I think we could still go ahead with replacing the electors by counting votes per district, but we'll need something to offset the discrepancies (because fixing the House of Representatives sounds equally impossible)--like how the senate represents states equally. I don't think it likely that voters in any particular state could unite for their own interests, let alone to undermine other states, in the 21st century, but there should probably be another source of votes that could counter the distict votes. Maybe we give each governor one vote (equal to a district) and allow them to vote after the initial count. That's 50 votes against 435; voters would expect their governor to represent the will of the majority in their state, and they wouldn't be able to override a large majority, but they could turn around a close election.
>>759490She lost democrap.
>nor would he be the first president to make such a slip.
I had another idea: what if we discout districts whose turnout doesn't meet a certain quota? ie, if less than 50% of elgible voters in your district vote, your distict does not get a vote.
The purpose being to encourage more people to vote and also strengthen the gubernatorial vote against majority-indifferent districts.
You now know that only 38% of US citizens voted in the last election.
Because they thought the motivated minority could be trusted to make the right choice. I'd like to think they wouldn't make that mistake again but I know complacency is the cancer of human intellect.
>Because they thought the motivated minority could be trusted to make the right choice.
That isnt even the real Hillary. She passed away over a year ago from a lung infection.
What a coincidence.
What do you mean, changed positions?
Has he ever supported the war?
People should be marching in the streets against this terrible b if traditional middle class Americans have anything to say about it. Sage hard. Stop posting her picture everywhere, your only helping her.
airwolf yeah they should be marching out in the streets. How dare she not give the top .1% the biggest tax cut they've had in decades.
Honestly who gives a shit.
>who gives a shit
Sufferers of Fox Geezer Derangement Syndrome.
Everyone else has more important things to do with their lives.