D R O P P E D so hard

D R O P P E D so hard.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5DTbashsKic
forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/08/19/jill-stein-we-await-those-platform-positions-on-autism/#6234ac60567c
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>implying panda agreed to this

>waaaah, my worldview is so fragile that I can't bare to enjoy an artist who doesn't conform to my retarded, uninformed opinions

please kill yourself

also delete 99% of your music because I can promise you pretty much everyone you listen to is le dirty leftist

>caring about an artists political views outside of their music

Nice projection, you fucking retarded center-right liberal. Let me guess, did you get bored of taking money from countries that literally slaughter the same people you claim to defend? Was droning weddings and schools not enough entertainment for you today?

I can't wait for Hillary to start war with Russia so all the smug leftist cunts can eat their metaphorical shit.

Sup Forums - music

>nice projection
oh no, it's retarded

I can't wait for the Democratic Party to become a full-time right-wing party so you miserable lesser-evilist cunts can realize just how thoroughly your pathetic ideology has fucked American discourse.
Not an argument.

>>>>>>>>>

Wow. What a nuanced world view. King strawman for president

>dropping a band because of irrelevant political beliefs

you're not very smart

Except that's literally what Hillary Clinton espouses. It's not a strawman.

>I can't wait for the Democratic Party to become a full-time right-wing party
You mean it isn't already?

Even if that were actually what Clinton espouses, at no point did I endorse or even mention Clinton. Even if I did endorse Clinton, I'm not entirely sure what I have to do with "taking money from countries."

No, I didn't get bored of taking money from the countries that I've apparently claimed to defend because I live in Ontario and I'm not a presidential candidate.

I'm also not a "center-right liberal."

So yeah, that was a pretty massive fucking strawman right there.

why didnt they vote for Jeb

So what was the point of your original post if not to endorse Hillary Clinton? You did quite blatantly criticize everyone left of her lukewarm center-right.

Honestly who cares?

>We then watched our government ... start a preemptive war with Iraq
You mean the one Clinton voted for?

The point of my original post was to call you retarded for "dropping" a musician for having a different political view than you do. You called that projection because you appear to be barely literate.

At no point did I "blatantly criticize everyone left of her lukewarm center-right." I legit have zero fucking clue what you're talking about.

It's okay he's only 14.

>>my retarded, uninformed opinions
>also delete 99% of your music because I can promise you pretty much everyone you listen to is le dirty leftist

>I have zero clue what you're talking about

I don't understand what part of that quote you think I was "blatantly criticizes everyone left of her lukewarm center-right."

The point is that if you're so fragile that you can't listen to music because someone doesn't like your presidential candidate, you may as well delete your entire library and just download some Ted Nugent albums.

At no point did I criticize the left wing there.

Yeah, that's starting to become apparent.

I literally only listen to low-key woke musicians that wouldn't dare make some cringey post about politics on their social media.
Fuck all of your hipster bullshit.

>implying I'm a right-winger
The entire crux of this post was criticizing AnCo's Clinton apologia and their "C-Clinton is totally not the same as Trump!"
I did misunderstand your "leftist" comment, though.

This tbqh.

No, the crux of your post was "fucking dropped' with zero explanation given.

AnCo clearly are not necessarily fans of Clinton if you read their post, though we've already established you have the reading comprehension of a 12 year old autist.

If you think Clinton and Trump are identical politicians I would suggest that you actually read what they stand for. Do you really think any left leaning politician will chose Trump over Clinton? Do you exist in a world where Trump is somehow the more left leaning politician or something?

When you're in a thread parroting whatever shit is posted on Sup Forums or the_donald, it's a little hard to understand what the fuck point you're even trying to make here.

Wrong post quoted, meant to reply to this:

and >>>/kys/

When will panda get on the account and pledge his support for the American fascist party?

He'll leave the band and form a new super group with Varg and Michael Gira.

>not fans of Clinton
They literally said #ImWithHer.

And I know that Trump and Clinton stand for. They both stand for the neoliberal corporatist status quo.
>Do you really think any left leaning politician will choose Trump over Clinton?
Lesser evilism strikes again. No, no left leaning politician would choose Trump over Clinton, but in a few years' time, the choice will be between Trump and David Duke.
Also
>implying I support Trump

>Was droning weddings and schools not enough entertainment for you today?

Because not liking Clinton == liking Trump, right?

>no Lofi album like Spirit They've Gone, Spirit They've Vanished mixed with kvlt BM and Gira neofolk influences
Jdimsa

i don't stop listening to artists but desu i get kind of iffy if i listen to something that condones fascism or racism, and that sort of stuff or as it is in this case - condones drone bombinb innocent people

Was Trump responsible for bombing Belgrade in 1999 or supporting the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

He'd actively campaign for it, and encourage more like it if he were there.

You can't change the past, but you can control the future.

>or supporting the invasion of Iraq in 2003
He actually did.

...

So did Clinton.

Malnourished, drug-addled has-beens are so mindfogged that they're convinced a war mongerer is fit for president. Color me surprised!

Yes, they said that they were endorsing Clinton. They didn't give her a shining endorsement. They said they understood why people would feel disillusioned and choose to not vote or choose a third party. They say there's a clear difference between the two politicians (I'd agree). That doesn't mean they support whatever nonsense you're parroting from Sup Forums.

>And I know that Trump and Clinton stand for. They both stand for the neoliberal corporatist status quo.
Trump has quite a protectionist slant, or at least he did. It's difficult with him since he changes positions every five minutes.

>Lesser evilism strikes again. No, no left leaning politician would choose Trump over Clinton, but in a few years' time, the choice will be between Trump and David Duke.
That's quite an amazing slippery slope you got there. If America choosing the more progressive politician in this election, they're going down a path towards white nationalism. Okay, I guess?

You're too retarded to debate with. Good bye.

W H O T H E F U C K C A R E S A B O U T A N A R T I S T S P O L I T I C A L O P I N I O N S

Trump has zero political experience.

This is kind of like going to a job interview and boasting about how you never failed an exam because you didn't go to university.

Triggered Trump babbies, clearly.

This. The alt-right like to make le triggered jokes and talk about special snowflakes while they're the most easily triggered group in the world.

>whatever nonsense you're parroting from Sup Forums
I don't go on Sup Forums.
>he changes positions every five minutes
And Clinton doesn't?
>the more progressive politician in this election
"More progressive" doesn't mean "progressive," she herself "pleads guilty" to being a moderate, not a progressive. And, yes, that is how American elections work, that is how they have been working for the longest time.

>everyone who dislikes Hillary is an alt-reicher
Alright, I see I'm arguing with delusional people now.

>baring the thought that at any time in the near future any action carried on by the USA government could be anything but right-wing

>hillary is better than trump-ism

this delusion has to die, they're all ruling class stop kidding yourselves.
bourgeois liberalism is killing children abroad and calling it progressive.
time to call out yr favorite artists.

The thing is you dont get to decide who runs, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of the pragmatic error that is letting your vote go to waste. Please think before you post, and be aware of the current political scneario, instead of just spitting memes

>I don't want Arab children in the Middle-East to die because they're Arab, I want Arab children in the Middle-East to die because they're in the Middle-East.
bourgeoisliberalism.jpeg

>hating a good band/artist because of their political views.
literally every decent musicians are liberals. why are you even on this board?

>And Clinton doesn't?
no

>"More progressive" doesn't mean "progressive," she herself "pleads guilty" to being a moderate, not a progressive. And, yes, that is how American elections work, that is how they have been working for the longest time.
You're right, it means "more progressive." Hilary is clearly more progressive than the far right Trump. George fucking Bush would be a godsend over Trump.

Not sure what your beef is here anyways. AnCo are voting for the candidate that isn't promoting racism and xenophobia but the candidate they chose isn't perfect therefore their music is terrible... or something?

Would you prefer they vote for the libertarian who wants to abolish all social services? Would you prefer they vote for the anti-vaxxer? Would you prefer they stay home and hope that the white supremacist doesn't win?

What the fuck is your solution other than sitting on your computer and bitching about people who actually take a stance on issues?

>if I create ridiculous arguments that nobody ever made, it'll be a lot easier to take them down and win le debate
aliteralretard.png

>actually take a stance on issues
>shuffles the oligarchy representatives every 4 years

i'm sorry but you've come down with a hard case of the liberalism

guess he was just pointing out the actual difference between your two monarchs

Even using your retarded language "shuffling the oligarchy" is a political action.

You've still yet to offer any solutions. You haven't told us which candidate we should be voting for. You haven't told us how people can possibly remove these "oligarchs." You've yet to refute the idea that one of the two candidates is openly hostile to Mexicans and Muslims.

Instead, again, you're upset that people are doing ~something~. If you want to talk about keeping the status quo, perhaps you ought to look in the mirror, because they're's nothing less anti-establishment than sitting with your dick out complaining about people who give a fuck about anything.

Honestly dude, all this makes you look like one gigantic concern troll.

>You've still yet to offer any solutions.

The solution has been there all along comrade.
youtube.com/watch?v=5DTbashsKic

Great, but since that's not likely to occur between now and 11pm, let's try to avoid the rise of white nationalism in the meantime.

>The alt-right like to make le triggered jokes and talk about special snowflakes while they're the most easily triggered group in the world.
This is the most obnoxious thing about this site. So many boards get triggered at anything they deem "leftist"

White nationalism has been allowed to freely develop and grown under neo-liberalism. Hell, one can find that it empowers it trough enforcing racism systematiclly. Choosing the less obvious imperialist warmonger over the domestic redneck isn't going to change that people will continue to suffer for it.

We can't fight the superstructrue because of liberals keep buying into it - "it's going to change trust me my guy", like fuck it will. It will co-opt anything remotely progressive to de-radicalize you and bring you into the fold again.
Change your mindset - then we can talk about social change.

>no
Except she does? She hasn't been nearly as inconsistent as Trump, tough.
>Hillary is clearly more progressive than the far right Trump.
By what measure? Even if you come to this conclusion, that isn't saying much - as you said, Bush is more progressive.
>the candidate that isn't promoting racism and xenophobia
You mean the candidate that is trying to perpetuate Red Scare 3.0 with her constant Russia fearmongering and has spent her life campaigning for interventionist warmongering? THAT candidate who isn't promoting xenophobia? Sure, she isn't promoting racism either, but don't be naïve.
>the anti-vaxxer
Top meme.
>What the fuck is your solution
Voting for an actual leftist candidate rather than the center-right faux progressive who will continue the neoliberal status quo? Better yet, not wasting your time participating in a bourgeois election and instead try helping assist a proletarian revolution?
>people are doing ~something~
Yeah, great on them for casting their vote to decide how the ruling class dictates our lives!
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
This.


>leftist
Hillary is no leftist, but I get your meaning.

Okay.

Out of curiosity, what revolutionary initiatives do you have planned before the conclusion of the election? I'll watch out for it on the news.

I'm just working on the assumption that you're not a massive fucking hypocrite, that you're actually doing something for social change and that you're not just sitting on your ass talking revolution while actually bitching about people who go out and do things.

>everyone who dislikes Hillary is an alt-reicher

Well, when the post in question is in all caps and typed out in a similar fashion to how r/The_Donald's posters type.........

Just calling a spade a spade. I'm a simple no-nonsense gentleman myself. :^)

alright that's it I decided im voting for hillary

they made MPP and Spirit, two top ten pop albums of all time they know what's up

Just a question, are you illiterate? Because none of the posts in this thread fit those criteria.

o shit you got me i don't run into the streets at this very moment and lob rocks at the establishment shit nothing gets past this guy

Tell me, what are you going to do to stop white nationalism once you've elected Clinton?
You're going to wait for your representative to dismantle systematic racism that favors her contributors? You're going to wait for your representative to bomb a couple of thousand innocent people in the middle east while she contemplates best how to fight the system she vanguards?

You're damaging more than you're helping, you realize that?

Not even speaking of the absolute abhorrent moral decision you're making by voting for Hillary.

>She hasn't been nearly as inconsistent as Trump, tough.
Correct.
>By what measure? Even if you come to this conclusion, that isn't saying much - as you said, Bush is more progressive.
Correct. So, I would vote for Bush over Trump, just as I'd vote for Hilary over Trump. This logic seems to trip you up somehow.

>You mean the candidate that is trying to perpetuate Red Scare 3.0 with her constant Russia fearmongering and has spent her life campaigning for interventionist warmongering? THAT candidate who isn't promoting xenophobia?
She's not asking for the deportation of Russians or any kind of nonsense like this though. She's rightly criticizing a *government.* I'm going to work on the assumption that as a person who dislikes "dictators," you're not a Putin apologist.

>Top meme.
So, calling out Jill's pandering to alternative medicine is a meme now? It must be nice to dismiss things you don't like as memes.

>Voting for an actual leftist candidate rather than the center-right faux progressive who will continue the neoliberal status quo?
Which one is that?

>Better yet, not wasting your time participating in a bourgeois election and instead try helping assist a proletarian revolution?
lmao, what are you doing to assist/organize a "proletarian revolution?"

Could you name ANY political initiatives you've undertaken?

>o shit you got me i don't run into the streets at this very moment and lob rocks at the establishment shit nothing gets past this guy
Yeah, I gathered that you don't actually do any of the things you talk about.

When have you ever taken the streets? Have you ever even protested?

I don't live in America so I'm not going to elect anyone.

Question: are the people who vote for Trump also committing an "absolute abhorrent moral decision?"

>Yeah, I gathered that you don't actually do any of the things you talk about.

Of course, this must be it - not the fact that the material conditions for revolution is in place. Gee wiz, Marx come up w something better you dirty old geezer

>When have you ever taken the streets? Have you ever even protested?

Maybe more than you have? I know that I do my best under my own circumstances to stand in solidarity for the oppressed, both near me and globally. When was the last time you stood up for principles?

>are the people who vote for Trump also committing an "absolute abhorrent moral decision?"

Without a doubt

>is in place
Meant; Are not in place

>Of course, this must be it - not the fact that the material conditions for revolution is in place.
Which was precisely my argument ten minutes ago. You keep knocking on people for voting in this election because they're not taking the streets while you... don't take the streets because that's not an option (not that I believe you've ever put any serious thought, effort or consideration into this idea). You live in a false dichotomy where either you are literally storming the whitehouse with pitchforks or nothing at all matters or makes a difference.

>Gee wiz, Marx come up w something better you dirty old geezer
A second ago you were talking about the proletariat revolution and now I'm Marx? I don't even follow.

>I know that I do my best under my own circumstances to stand in solidarity for the oppressed, both near me and globally.
What have you done specifically? What does this mean? Who were these oppressed?

I have protested, canvased, advocated for political activists (e.g. migrant workers rights in Ontario), even back in the day a little humanitarian aid, though honestly that's quite exhausting.

So maybe you've done more than me. Who knows? Maybe you'll explain what you did under your "own circumstances" and who these "oppressed" were.

>Without a doubt
So voting in general is an "absolute abhorrent moral decision?"

Or do you have a candidate in mind?

AnCo is british so they can't even vote in the election, so who fucking cares

>This logic seems to trip you up somehow.
It's just good old liberal lesser-evilism. I've already gone over why that ideology has destroyed America.
>She's rightly criticizing a *government.*
I have not seen her criticize the government besides propping it up as a boogeyman. I do agree that Putin is a despicable human. However, I'm sure you understand that just because she isn't openly racist does not mean that her administration has not done a lot to spread it.
>dismiss things you don't like as memes.
I dismissed it as a meme because it is a meme. Jill isn't anti-vaxxer.
>Which one is that?
Take your pick from one of the dozen third-party candidates.

oh look its a smug socialist who thinks everybody who isnt in the commie club is right-wing

I love it when trumptards keep accusing Hillary of rigging the election then get just as assmad when her supporters try to register and mobilize voters legally.

>I've already gone over why that ideology has destroyed America.
No you didn't. You didn't explain dick all. First you'll need to establish what America ~should~ be in the first place.

>However, I'm sure you understand that just because she isn't openly racist does not mean that her administration has not done a lot to spread it.
Could you elaborate here?

>I dismissed it as a meme because it is a meme. Jill isn't anti-vaxxer.
She's clearly using language to pander to the anti-vaxxers.
forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/08/19/jill-stein-we-await-those-platform-positions-on-autism/#6234ac60567c

>Take your pick from one of the dozen third-party candidates.
Which one though? Since you seem to know which ones are bad, I'm sure you can tell us who we should be voting for.

The funny thing is he's arguing with a socialist.

Except that's absolutely true.
>implying I'm a Trumptard

>You live in a false dichotomy where either you are literally storming the whitehouse with pitchforks or nothing at all matters or makes a difference.

No the issue here is that everyone inspires others by doing. Giving in to the ruling body's way of coercing the masses, instead of advocating for change - expressing total lack of faith in the representative oligarch process. Actions do not exist in a vacuum, social change does not happen by "Being with Her". So in some ways, the non-voters are greater political activists than the Democrats ever will be.

>A second ago you were talking about the proletariat revolution and now I'm Marx? I don't even follow.

That was like for Marx himself and not you so yknow

>What have you done specifically?
Two days ago I marched with the Kurds in my city in solidarity with the recent arrests of HDP leaders and solidarity with Kurdistan. Four days ago we protested our current racist government policies. A couple of weeks ago, solidarity with striking Dockworkers. I regularly volunteer at local events to promote locally produced ethical food.

If it were tangible examples you were after, I could go on and list more but that's really unneccessary

>"own circumstances"
What I mean by this is my socio-economic situatio - can I get off work, can I afford the traveling expenses and so on.

>So voting in general is an "absolute abhorrent moral decision?"

You would agree that voting for a candidate gives you at least an amount of moral responsibility for the actions of the electee you voted for? If a fragment of that moral responsibility goes to slaughteing innocents, exploit developing countries' population, exploit your domestic population for that matter - then yes, voting for that candidate is an abhorrent moral decision on your own part.

No voting in general is not a "bad moral decision" - just be prepared to bear whatever comes off it on your conscience.

this rly makes me think

>Except that's absolutely true.
lmao, no

communists with their shitty fucking purity tests is what turned me away from the ideology

>liberals.jpg
Do you not even see like a smidge of how smug and privilieged the liberal position is?

also
>communists with their shitty fucking purity tests is what turned me away from the ideology
man liberals.avi

Here's your little Communist Purity Test.
>Are you a capitalist? Y/N
If you answer Y, you are not on the left. It is literally that fucking simple.

Liberals like you are capitalist, therefore you are not left.

>No the issue here is that everyone inspires others by doing
>instead of advocating for change
Would you look at these two completely non-contradictory statements.

>oligarch process
Please invest in a dictionary before you start with this nonsense.

>So in some ways, the non-voters are greater political activists than the Democrats ever will be.
I agree. Taking a non-political stance is, in a sense, supporting the status quo. Congratulations on that end.

>That was like for Marx himself and not you so yknow
What the fuck are you talking about?

>Two days ago I marched with the Kurds in my city in solidarity with the recent arrests of HDP leaders and solidarity with Kurdistan. Four days ago we protested our current racist government policies. A couple of weeks ago, solidarity with striking Dockworkers. I regularly volunteer at local events to promote locally produced ethical food.
Assuming this isn't being pulled out of your ass, good for you.

>What I mean by this is my socio-economic situatio - can I get off work, can I afford the traveling expenses and so on.
Many people in the states live in this same reality.

>You would agree that voting for a candidate gives you at least an amount of moral responsibility for the actions of the electee you voted for?
Do you mean to suggest that people are personally responsible for the actions of the candidate they vote for even if those actions were not presented as part of that candidate's policies?
Are you suggesting that things are black and white such that if you chose a lesser "evil" there is zero actual difference between you and the worse "evil" even if by neglecting to choose the lesser "evil" the worse evil will happen?
Are you suggesting that negative actions never carry any moral weight?

Can you suggest the candidate people should be voting for?

They handled it a hell of a lot better than Tortoise did, in any case

>betraying your own position while not discouraging the opposition, instead encouraging higher voter turnout

The mature way to do it. Go Anco.

Are you aware that the left/right political spectrum isn't a real thing and is just a means to categorize people and their political leanings?

There's no universal left/right spectrum dude, it's whatever the author decided should be left/right/whatever.

If you'd really like to effect change in the world, maybe you ought not to completely alienate anyone who doesn't subscribe to your exact political beliefs. If you want to be a self righteous TRUE leftie, then keep on being an obtuse, misinformed retard.

>maybe you ought not to completely alienate anyone who doesn't subscribe to your exact political beliefs
Are you retarded? Liberalism and leftism are incompatible because liberalism is FUNDAMENTALLY for capitalism. You must be genuinely politically illiterate if you don't see this.

>Would you look at these two completely non-contradictory statements.

When did inspire others to de-radicalize in favor of the capitalists become the same as advocating for social change?

>Please invest in a dictionary before you start with this nonsense.

You could try to equate the american "democratic" process with the dictionairy definition of democracy - unless your grasp on reality is slipping you understand that they're all ruling class?

>I agree. Taking a non-political stance is, in a sense, supporting the status quo. Congratulations on that end.

Thorough understanding there.

>What the fuck are you talking about?

Your reading comprehension has transcended this realm. Just forget about it.

>Many people in the states live in this same reality.

No one is making an argument here,

>Do you mean to suggest that people are personally responsible for the actions of the candidate they vote for even if those actions were not presented as part of that candidate's policies?

Why do you vote for them if you know they're deceptive and will do these things? That's more you fooling yourself.


Are you suggesting that things are black and white such that if you chose a lesser "evil" there is zero actual difference between you and the worse "evil" even if by neglecting to choose the lesser "evil" the worse evil will happen?

I think you're operating under the delusion that there is a clear cut lesser evil here.

>Are you suggesting that negative actions never carry any moral weight?

I'm suggesting everyone taking responsibilty for their own actions.

>Can you suggest the candidate people should be voting for?

Not in America, I can suggest several bookstores that carry Das Kapital however - which is much more beneficial.

Why fuss up about not capitalists not being included in the left understanding of this non-concept?

Are you mad the commies won't ally with toxic exploiters of capitalism? Because even if the left/right spectrum is total bullshit, socialism and it's sphere is fundamentally different from that of capitalism.

Are you retarded? You don't seem to have read anything I said at all.

"Leftism" is not a meaningful categorization because left doesn't mean the same to you as it does to everyone else.

Politics is more than economics, friend.

>Are you mad the commies won't ally with toxic exploiters of capitalism?
No

>being a literal not just metaphorical commie in the year of our lord almost 2017
>on a spanish pottery site for blind orphans
>in the current year of 2016

>When did inspire others to de-radicalize in favor of the capitalists become the same as advocating for social change?
That is quite literally a form of social change.

>Thorough understanding there.
Thanks.

>Your reading comprehension has transcended this realm. Just forget about it.
It's that you're not making sense and that you're wrongly assuming I am a "center right-liberal." I'm having a hard time following what accusations you're lobbing at me because they're usually positions I never took and don't follow. You could explain what the fuck you're trying to say, but I suppose it's easier to evade it and call me stupid.

>No one is making an argument here
I was, actually

>Why do you vote for them if you know they're deceptive and will do these things? That's more you fooling yourself.
This works on the assumption that I am expecting my candidate to be deceptive. If I don't except this premise your question is meaningless.

>I think you're operating under the delusion that there is a clear cut lesser evil here.
Feel free to clarify. Or, you can just call me delusional without providing any rationale or concrete examples. At least you'd be consistent.

>I'm suggesting everyone taking responsibilty for their own actions.
You evaded the question. Would you agree that inaction is a form of action? Do those people have any responsibility?

>Not in America, I can suggest several bookstores that carry Das Kapital however - which is much more beneficial.
Yes, if only I could read a book I've already read, that'll surely help me pick the political candidate you refuse to recommend.

>That is quite literally a form of social change.

De-radicalization to uphold the status quo isn't social change. And no, as you implied earlier, not voting does not uphold the status quo, it is a rejection of it.


>You could explain what the fuck you're trying to say, but I suppose it's easier to evade it and call me stupid.

The thing I wrote first was like not directed at you - this is beyond me you're just going to have to re-read what I wrote originally until you get the joke(tm)

>I was, actually
On what?

>If I don't except this premise your question is meaningless.

So in every situation ever that there has been a potential outcome of an ambigious action, in every situation the enablers of that outcome are 'all good' because they were operating under an expectation that did not coincide with the outcome?

>Feel free to clarify
You have two candidates who aside from a few populist stances uphold the same system - one is very clear on their desire to wage war abroad, one is very clear on their desire to wage social war domestically. What is the lesser evil?

>Would you agree that inaction is a form of action?
Yes, but not voting is not an in-action. Not voting is not the neutral stance here.

>help me pick
You don't have to pick. Elect to resist instead.

Lmao at all these PolSci 101 buzzwords.
What do any of these farcical candidates know about the global economic crisis that's about to get much worse. Can anyone of you know-it-all goofs tell me about that.
There's a reason all these morons are musicians and not moneymakers.

He said nothing about his political beliefs, you idiot. All he said was that disliking an artist because they're at odds with your own beliefs is a pretty dumb thing to do. He's right. You're a pretty dumb dude.

And what is Trump? A peace mongerer?

>De-radicalization to uphold the status quo isn't social change
An hour ago you were suggesting that voting for Hilary was a slippery slope towards David fucking Duke. I don't accept any of your premises, I'm merely saying that if people were really advocating for this, this is a form of social change. Advocating for terrible things is still advocacy. It's still doing more than sitting on your ass, deleting artists discographies for deciding to vote in an election.

>The thing I wrote first was like not directed at you
Could you explain the context then? I'm assuming you didn't drop that in for no fucking reason. I'm assuming it's somehow relevant to some position you think I'm taking or have taken.

>On what?
It's sad that I need to explain this, but you said that you could only fight for political change to the best of your ability because you had a life, job, personal responsibilities, etc. I'm telling you that many people, likewise, are not able to take their pitchforks out and rush the whitehouse because people in the states, likewise, have lives, jobs, responsibilities, etc. Your position is that people should be starting a revolution while you're fine sitting on your ass because, hey, you have to pay the bills, right?

>So in every situation ever that there has been a potential outcome of an ambigious action, in every situation the enablers of that outcome are 'all good' because they were operating under an expectation that did not coincide with the outcome?
They're not good or bad because I don't hold people accountable for things they didn't have anything to do with...?

By this logic, are parole boards criminally liable if a freed prisoner commits another crime?

fuck off cunt :)

i dont aspire to be "left" you spooked son of a bitch, and i certainly dont agree with capitalism. take the stick out of ur ass.

>You have two candidates who aside from a few populist stances uphold the same system - one is very clear on their desire to wage war abroad, one is very clear on their desire to wage social war domestically. What is the lesser evil?
Well, here again lies the problem. You've made these declarative statements as if I'm supposed to accept them as the undisputed truth. You've made two statements that lack any nuance. It's a pain in the ass to argue with someone like you.

>Yes, but not voting is not an in-action. Not voting is not the neutral stance here.
Because you've declared that it is this way, sure.

Trump and Clinton must be shaking in their boots everytime someone doesn't vote. That means only the people who have an interest in either candidate will vote, which'll definitely change the status quo!

>You don't have to pick. Elect to resist instead.
I definitely don't have to pick since I'm a Canadian.

Anyways bud, I have to go and this is kind of a drag. You seem to think you're arguing with some "left of center-right liberal" (strangely American term from a Turk, but I digress), while I mentioned that I am in fact a socialist. I'm merely arguing against your lazy appeal to the status quo, and honestly, I'm not so convinced you're not a concern troll offering apologetic for Trump and Putin.

So, cheers and keep fighting those oligarchs!

You're confusing me with someone else it seems, our first interaction started here

>Could you explain the context then?
Since you've confused me with someone else, here's what I wrote that you fussed about:
>Gee wiz, Marx come up w something better you dirty old geezer
Which was meant as a joke, directed at Marx

>Your position is that people should be starting a revolution while you're fine sitting on your ass because, hey, you have to pay the bills, right?

The issue here was that to our best ability we've practiced activism. No one is demanding normal people to commit sporadic propaganda of the deed.
Like it was stated, the material conditions for revolution are not in place.

>They're not good or bad because I don't hold people accountable for things they didn't have anything to do with...?
But voting for a person who've openly expressed willingness to and has experience in warfare is not something that people can be held morally responsible for?

>are parole boards criminally liable if a freed prisoner commits another crime?
You're the one to talk of false dichotomies