This. All of the brainwashed sheeple buying into the MSM's narrative (Trump bad, Republicans bad, capitalism bad) don't realize that this is getting rid of a duplicate regulation that represents FCC overreach. It is the FTC that is supposed to, and does, regulate this activity. So, if we want more privacy, we need to press the FTC. HEY SHEEPLE: Big government sucks.
Of course, the irony that Leftists don't understand is that the mainstream media are being called out for the Leftist shills that they are. First, there is a wiretap documented in their own reporting in the New York Times. Then Trump tweets it and it's suddenly false. Then, all of a sudden, people are starting to say that there's no proof of the Trump-Russia connection. Where's the true story? And, did Obama break the law by-- directly or indirectly-- using intelligence gathered on an American citizen?
If Progressives had the mental capacity, their heads would be exploding. But, they don't. Convenient short-term memory, and blind obedience and adherence to propaganda, has created a bunch of robots who will never engage in intelligent discourse, let alone understand nuance.
Political correctness is fascism. Ironic that you would equate facism to Trump, when the liberals-- who control the mainstream media-- are decrying free speech. In fact, it's beyond political correctness. The mainstream narrative (which, for some reason, is self-titled "news" rather than "opinions originating from lazy and unbalanced journalism") is empowering people to thumb their noses at those who might dig a little more deeply and not fall for the hyperbole that characterizes them as racist anti-semite xenophobes.
What scares me is the revelation that the mainstream media has been blatantly compromised by the Democrats; and, further, that the source of that information became the issue, rather than the horrifying reality that this compromised media is currently ushering in.
Look in the mirror before pulling out the old "Hitler fascist" argument.
they put better mixes on records for pure marketing reasons.
Not quite, although overall I agree with your assessment of the situation. Among other things, vinyl actually requires what I would call a "dumbed down" mix/master-- that is, it can't be too loud; and, in the low end, there can't be too much stereo information. All of these are related to the physical limitation of the needle and the grooves necessary to reproduce sound on vinyl.
That said, depending on the genre you like, you might like vinyl *mixes* (which *are* in many cases different mixes than ones you might hear today that are "remastered for iTunes"). This is because songs on vinyl are mixed and mastered more dynamically (or, "quietly"). Modern digital music tends to be really really loud, so the difference between loud and soft parts is kind of negligible. Certain genres, of course, lend themselves to loud-- EDM, heavy metal...
I really don't care about vinyl either way, except that I think people who think it is a better medium for music are complete suckers. The science behind "vinyl is better" is one to be understood in terms of packaging and tactile experience, and has zero to do with audio in terms of the vinyl medium's ability to reproduce sound vs. digital.
Questions: How is the publishing of a fact in any way, shape, or form "discriminatory?" I could understand an argument that such a fact could be *used to discriminate* by one so inclined to use it as such. But I simply do not understand how this law is not a complete, literal, unquestionable violation of free speech? Or, have we gotten to a point of political correctness that we must protect the alternate realities that facts discriminate against?
Please elaborate on his hostility to "free speech?" It was the democrats and biased media, along with the blindly faithful Hillary suppporters, who complained about his speech and wondered how to stop it.
Make no mistake about it, the democrats would absolutely love to start implementing speech laws to shut down non-politically-correct speech. The irony is that the word "fascist" is used to describe Trump and Trump supporters by the most fascist regime in the US: Liberals. In fact, how much more fascist can you get than trying to nullify a cleanly won Democratic election?
If you stand up for Hillary, you are standing up for US-sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. This is much different than any mere threats that Trump supporters may make. It is actual violence with actual deaths of thousands of actual people...
So strange that this is marked as "insightful." The emails reveal Hillary to be two-faced, corrupt, and willing to leverage her power and influence in a fascistic manner to support her rise to the presidency. These revelations are that, and only that. The actual dumb conclusion is the notion that these email revelations are "actively supporting" Donald Trump.
Wake up! And, welcome to democracy. Some people like the candidate you don't like. The "dumb" that you speak of is from that sniveling tower of arrogance that you and other Hillary apologists love to speak from. The real story is that-- like/believe it or not-- Hillary's *real* story is one of corruption, and conduct possibly punishable under law.
Both Hillary and Trump are completely repulsive candidates in completely different ways. Luckily, there are other choices we can vote for. I will vote for Johnson. (And, here come the regurgitated big-media rebuttals of this. My favorite is the "wasted vote" rebuttal, which is simply a lie that-- when unwittingly perpetuated-- enhance the erosion of democracy that we're currently witnessing in the US.)
Isn't the real story that hacking is the only current flavor of journalism that reveals real information about important stuff that would otherwise not be reported by "real" journalists (who are on the payroll of {$politician or $big_corporation})? It's disturbing how many Hillary shills dismiss the content of the leaked emails as "fake" and give her a pass for what appears to be some authentic and relatively "not-fit-for-office" activity.
Admittedly being pedantic, but: The definition of "meme" has really been bastardized by the existence of stupid Facebook photos with humorous text in them.
A meme-- quoting wikipedia-- will "self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures." An example of an *actual* meme is that of God. God is, essentially, a human idea that has quite successfully survived thousands and thousands of years. It self-replicates through the fear or imagination of human beings who pass dogma to their offspring, mutates through different flavors of those dogmas, and responds to the culture of the times in an often populist way to ensure the continued acceptance of it.
So, while controlling "memes" in the bastardized Facebook definition context could be *somewhat* enforceable, controlling *actual* memes-- long-held self-evolving humanity-wide ideas-- would be impossible. In fact, the notion of trying to prohibit the FB memes perpetuates the age-old meme of distrusting authority.
I recommend reading a bit about memes; memetic theory is enlightening in the context of propaganda, mass media, etc. I often think about this theory when folks pointedly or emotionally ask, "How the hell could you believe that?" This book is pretty good: https://www.amazon.com/Virus-M...
I defy you to even state the US's objective in Syria to begin with. How are we to measure success for that particular military intervention? The real story about Aleppo is the foreign policy mess that Clinton bears much responsibility for. In fact, Johnson is an avid opponent of regime change. Did you even catch the fact that, in their rush to discredit Johnson, the New York Times misidentified Aleppo itself?
It's advantageous to Clinton for this stale "Aleppo" gaffe to remain in the news: She feels the threat of a candidate who won't be afraid to call her out on all of her BS with specific statistics and actual plans (e.g. her criminal justice reform proposal based on "investing in trust" rather that ending the unsuccessful "war on drugs").
This stupid gaffe is still in the news, and yet the Clinton email story has somehow slipped under the radar, even as more evidence of wrongdoing is exposed. I'm surprised that you didn't mention the "world leader" gaffe. That's not as juicy, though, because it's relatively easy to find the actual interview with the *actual* question that Johnson was asked: "Name one world leader *that you admire.*" So, the "unable to name a world leader" thing is pretty much moot.
I understand why ill-informed sheep would continue to perpetuate the "Gary is an idiot" meme, but wake up and look at the issues. The mainstream media are Clinton shills with a vested interest in discrediting Johnson as much as possible leading up to the election (and, skirting the real issues that Clinton won't ever resolve).
I do find some comfort in this election, though: The lack of credibility of mainstream media in the US is clearer than ever. And, I dare say, the fact that millenials-- who consume 0% of old media-- support Johnson speaks to the fact that a campaign's saavy use of new media to raise awareness and offer fuller, non-biased information can make a huge difference. No, you won't see that side of this election story in mainstream media. To me, this signals one more step on the path to the death of mainstream media, and the rise of social media as the source for real journalism.
I've worked in varying degrees of depth within Knowledge Management, and what I've seen over the years is that decisions like this aren't based on any real-world data. Guys want to roll out giant systems with the assumption that "everyone is going to use it," without defining the problem they're trying to resolve, and without gathering requirements. Further, there is zero serious thought given to the maintenance nor curation of such a resource once it is implemented.
So, either a) lots of people use it, and it gets completely polluted by useless, outdated, and possibly confusing information (e.g. dump all of their crap in Box.net); or b) nobody uses it, because there was no reason to use it (e.g. Yammer is so cute, isn't it?).
Talk to somebody who works at a company that has treated Knowledge Management as an actual project and you'll get a completely different perspective on $social_platform/$knowledge_platform. Unfortunately, it's the exception rather than the norm.
The problem with this is that: 1) in capitalism, the "bullshit industry alliance" seems to be inevitable at a certain point in completely free markets; and 2) "competition" for medical products-- the demand for which rarely, if ever, decreases-- opens the door for horrible abuses, such as this $500 EpiPen issue.
The demand for pharmaceuticals and medical devices is linked to either quality of life, or even survival. The medical industry, IMHO, is an exception to a "market will cure all" philosophy. I am a Libertarian for a large percentage of issues, but this is something I take issue with.
Apple is actually pretty transparent about which apps are accessing your location (or, it seems to be). I noticed the location services icon a few times when I thought it didn't make sense, but I was able to see which app had recently used the location services and disabled it. Problem solved. The annoying location thing with Apple is that Siri can't search the web without location turned on (or at least, she couldn't the last time I tried, which was a relatively long time ago). So, I don't use Siri for that. The App Store doesn't access my location services as far as I can tell.
Regarding Gary Johnson and Libertarians in general: I like the fact that there is debate within the Libertarian Party about what the government should and shouldn't do. That debate is so much more likely to eventually resolve what's wrong with Government than the 10-second R and D soundbyte issues that appeal to short-term populist b.s. to gain votes (and that will probably be abandoned shortly after the election).
It is correct to say that Gary Johnson disagrees with some of the Libertarian platform, and if you dig into some of his interviews online, you will see that he does not shy away from it. Thank goodness that strict dogmatic adherance to a single platform isn't required for his LP candidacy, as that is what ultimately makes R's and D's so unappealing to me, as an independent voter. For instance, Johnson strongly supports the 2nd ammendment, but does not agree with the LP's laissez-faire stance on guns.
As far as the "forced to make wedding cakes"-- Johnson is wary of the government's role in forcing political correctness down people's throats; however, he again deviates from the LP platform by acknowledging that, at some point, a civilized society shouldn't tolerate intollerance. Of course, the Jew/Nazi example is an emotional hot button, which predictably causes some groans in your video clip, but seriously? Businesses must be licensed by the government and, as such, *should* be required to honor the Civil Rights of human beings. The pretext of the discussion in your video clip was the ability for a baker to deny gay couples wedding cakes, and Johnson thinks that denying someone services based on the (negative perception/hatred/disagreement) of them is bad. And he retains consistency with his point-of-view on the Jew/Nazi example.
I like the phrase I've heard in a few different spots now: Johnson would be "the adult in the room" if he were to be included in the debates.
Your philosophy is basically, "Even though the system sucks, I don't have the sack to try and change stuff. Voting for a winner is much more important."
The 2-party system is a meme, and "wasted vote" people are unwittingly compliant cliches. Lots of people believe that the 2-party system is unbreakable (based solely on the results of many 2-party-rigged election cycles), and it is self-perpetuating because people willingly and ignorantly claim-- as fact-- that a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote.
Not only that, but participants in/members of the 2-party system have rigged elections such that it is rare for The People to gain exposure to 3rd-party viewpoints. Exposure is tied directly to national polls that exclude 3rd party names, and the two-party election debate committee promotes the exclusion of 3rd parties from televised debates based solely on those statistics!
If you really want to understand what a wasted vote is, consider: Voting for a "loser" in your district is a "wasted vote" because of the electoral college. But, who can know who will win or lose to begin with (assuming the election is legally conducted)?
It is damaging to USA to continue perpetuating this meme. Decide what your issues are, and vote for the candidate you truly believe in. We should all cross our fingers that a 3rd party candidate (I support Johnson--fiscally conservative, socially liberal) can participate in televised debates this year so that we can see some common sense: intelligently presented issues and viewpoints outside the scope of a carefully crafted "soundbyte."
I not only reject the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils (which is what I suppose I would do if I believed a 3rd party vote were a waste), but I also think that it is a tremendously short-sighted approach to democracy and an insult toward progress in general. In the worst case scenario, your 3rd party vote could bolster a statistic that demonstrates the growth of a discontent with binary politics; and, possibly, increase support for whichever party you believe in.
The 2-party system is a meme, and "wasted vote" people are sheeple following it. It is a meme in that lots of people believe that the 2-party system is unbreakable (based solely on the results of many 2-party-rigged election cycles), and it is self-perpetuating because people are willing to ignorantly claim-- as fact-- that a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote.
Not only that, but participants in/members of the 2-party system have rigged elections such that it is rare for people to gain exposure to 3rd-party viewpoints, because exposure is tied directlly to national polls, which traditionally don't even include 3rd parties to begin with.
If you really want to look at what a wasted vote is, voting for a "loser" in your district is a "wasted vote" because of the electoral college. But who can know who will win or lose to begin with?
It is damaging to US politics to continue perpetuating this meme. Decide what your issues are, and vote for the candidate you truly believe in. We should all cross our fingers that a 3rd party candidate (I support Johnson) can participate in televised debates this year so that we can see some common-sense, intelligently presented issues and viewpoints outside the scope of a "soundbyte."
I not only reject the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils (which is what I suppose I would do if I believed a 3rd party vote were a waste), but I also think that it is a short-sighted and unintelligent approach to democracy in general. In the worst case scenario, your 3rd party vote will bolster a statistic that can demonstrate the growth of a general discontent with binary politics; and, possibly, increase support for whichever party you believe in.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha. So instead, we should steal the fruits of high-achievers' labor and give it to losers, right? How'd that work out in Venezuela?
This. All of the brainwashed sheeple buying into the MSM's narrative (Trump bad, Republicans bad, capitalism bad) don't realize that this is getting rid of a duplicate regulation that represents FCC overreach. It is the FTC that is supposed to, and does, regulate this activity. So, if we want more privacy, we need to press the FTC. HEY SHEEPLE: Big government sucks.
Never question the Misery that represents the lynchpin of the Progressive philosophy.
Of course, the irony that Leftists don't understand is that the mainstream media are being called out for the Leftist shills that they are. First, there is a wiretap documented in their own reporting in the New York Times. Then Trump tweets it and it's suddenly false. Then, all of a sudden, people are starting to say that there's no proof of the Trump-Russia connection. Where's the true story? And, did Obama break the law by-- directly or indirectly-- using intelligence gathered on an American citizen?
If Progressives had the mental capacity, their heads would be exploding. But, they don't. Convenient short-term memory, and blind obedience and adherence to propaganda, has created a bunch of robots who will never engage in intelligent discourse, let alone understand nuance.
Now make yourself one, dickweed!
Political correctness is fascism. Ironic that you would equate facism to Trump, when the liberals-- who control the mainstream media-- are decrying free speech. In fact, it's beyond political correctness. The mainstream narrative (which, for some reason, is self-titled "news" rather than "opinions originating from lazy and unbalanced journalism") is empowering people to thumb their noses at those who might dig a little more deeply and not fall for the hyperbole that characterizes them as racist anti-semite xenophobes.
What scares me is the revelation that the mainstream media has been blatantly compromised by the Democrats; and, further, that the source of that information became the issue, rather than the horrifying reality that this compromised media is currently ushering in.
Look in the mirror before pulling out the old "Hitler fascist" argument.
they put better mixes on records for pure marketing reasons.
Not quite, although overall I agree with your assessment of the situation. Among other things, vinyl actually requires what I would call a "dumbed down" mix/master-- that is, it can't be too loud; and, in the low end, there can't be too much stereo information. All of these are related to the physical limitation of the needle and the grooves necessary to reproduce sound on vinyl.
That said, depending on the genre you like, you might like vinyl *mixes* (which *are* in many cases different mixes than ones you might hear today that are "remastered for iTunes"). This is because songs on vinyl are mixed and mastered more dynamically (or, "quietly"). Modern digital music tends to be really really loud, so the difference between loud and soft parts is kind of negligible. Certain genres, of course, lend themselves to loud-- EDM, heavy metal...
I really don't care about vinyl either way, except that I think people who think it is a better medium for music are complete suckers. The science behind "vinyl is better" is one to be understood in terms of packaging and tactile experience, and has zero to do with audio in terms of the vinyl medium's ability to reproduce sound vs. digital.
Questions: How is the publishing of a fact in any way, shape, or form "discriminatory?" I could understand an argument that such a fact could be *used to discriminate* by one so inclined to use it as such. But I simply do not understand how this law is not a complete, literal, unquestionable violation of free speech? Or, have we gotten to a point of political correctness that we must protect the alternate realities that facts discriminate against?
One hundred and thir-turd?
https://youtu.be/1pzoJVnPblI
Please elaborate on his hostility to "free speech?" It was the democrats and biased media, along with the blindly faithful Hillary suppporters, who complained about his speech and wondered how to stop it.
Make no mistake about it, the democrats would absolutely love to start implementing speech laws to shut down non-politically-correct speech. The irony is that the word "fascist" is used to describe Trump and Trump supporters by the most fascist regime in the US: Liberals. In fact, how much more fascist can you get than trying to nullify a cleanly won Democratic election?
If you stand up for Hillary, you are standing up for US-sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. This is much different than any mere threats that Trump supporters may make. It is actual violence with actual deaths of thousands of actual people...
So strange that this is marked as "insightful." The emails reveal Hillary to be two-faced, corrupt, and willing to leverage her power and influence in a fascistic manner to support her rise to the presidency. These revelations are that, and only that. The actual dumb conclusion is the notion that these email revelations are "actively supporting" Donald Trump.
Wake up! And, welcome to democracy. Some people like the candidate you don't like. The "dumb" that you speak of is from that sniveling tower of arrogance that you and other Hillary apologists love to speak from. The real story is that-- like/believe it or not-- Hillary's *real* story is one of corruption, and conduct possibly punishable under law.
Both Hillary and Trump are completely repulsive candidates in completely different ways. Luckily, there are other choices we can vote for. I will vote for Johnson. (And, here come the regurgitated big-media rebuttals of this. My favorite is the "wasted vote" rebuttal, which is simply a lie that-- when unwittingly perpetuated-- enhance the erosion of democracy that we're currently witnessing in the US.)
Isn't the real story that hacking is the only current flavor of journalism that reveals real information about important stuff that would otherwise not be reported by "real" journalists (who are on the payroll of {$politician or $big_corporation})? It's disturbing how many Hillary shills dismiss the content of the leaked emails as "fake" and give her a pass for what appears to be some authentic and relatively "not-fit-for-office" activity.
Is that you?
Admittedly being pedantic, but: The definition of "meme" has really been bastardized by the existence of stupid Facebook photos with humorous text in them.
A meme-- quoting wikipedia-- will "self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures." An example of an *actual* meme is that of God. God is, essentially, a human idea that has quite successfully survived thousands and thousands of years. It self-replicates through the fear or imagination of human beings who pass dogma to their offspring, mutates through different flavors of those dogmas, and responds to the culture of the times in an often populist way to ensure the continued acceptance of it.
So, while controlling "memes" in the bastardized Facebook definition context could be *somewhat* enforceable, controlling *actual* memes-- long-held self-evolving humanity-wide ideas-- would be impossible. In fact, the notion of trying to prohibit the FB memes perpetuates the age-old meme of distrusting authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I recommend reading a bit about memes; memetic theory is enlightening in the context of propaganda, mass media, etc. I often think about this theory when folks pointedly or emotionally ask, "How the hell could you believe that?" This book is pretty good: https://www.amazon.com/Virus-M...
I defy you to even state the US's objective in Syria to begin with. How are we to measure success for that particular military intervention? The real story about Aleppo is the foreign policy mess that Clinton bears much responsibility for. In fact, Johnson is an avid opponent of regime change. Did you even catch the fact that, in their rush to discredit Johnson, the New York Times misidentified Aleppo itself?
It's advantageous to Clinton for this stale "Aleppo" gaffe to remain in the news: She feels the threat of a candidate who won't be afraid to call her out on all of her BS with specific statistics and actual plans (e.g. her criminal justice reform proposal based on "investing in trust" rather that ending the unsuccessful "war on drugs").
This stupid gaffe is still in the news, and yet the Clinton email story has somehow slipped under the radar, even as more evidence of wrongdoing is exposed. I'm surprised that you didn't mention the "world leader" gaffe. That's not as juicy, though, because it's relatively easy to find the actual interview with the *actual* question that Johnson was asked: "Name one world leader *that you admire.*" So, the "unable to name a world leader" thing is pretty much moot.
I understand why ill-informed sheep would continue to perpetuate the "Gary is an idiot" meme, but wake up and look at the issues. The mainstream media are Clinton shills with a vested interest in discrediting Johnson as much as possible leading up to the election (and, skirting the real issues that Clinton won't ever resolve).
I do find some comfort in this election, though: The lack of credibility of mainstream media in the US is clearer than ever. And, I dare say, the fact that millenials-- who consume 0% of old media-- support Johnson speaks to the fact that a campaign's saavy use of new media to raise awareness and offer fuller, non-biased information can make a huge difference. No, you won't see that side of this election story in mainstream media. To me, this signals one more step on the path to the death of mainstream media, and the rise of social media as the source for real journalism.
I've worked in varying degrees of depth within Knowledge Management, and what I've seen over the years is that decisions like this aren't based on any real-world data. Guys want to roll out giant systems with the assumption that "everyone is going to use it," without defining the problem they're trying to resolve, and without gathering requirements. Further, there is zero serious thought given to the maintenance nor curation of such a resource once it is implemented.
So, either a) lots of people use it, and it gets completely polluted by useless, outdated, and possibly confusing information (e.g. dump all of their crap in Box.net); or b) nobody uses it, because there was no reason to use it (e.g. Yammer is so cute, isn't it?).
Talk to somebody who works at a company that has treated Knowledge Management as an actual project and you'll get a completely different perspective on $social_platform/$knowledge_platform. Unfortunately, it's the exception rather than the norm.
The problem with this is that: 1) in capitalism, the "bullshit industry alliance" seems to be inevitable at a certain point in completely free markets; and 2) "competition" for medical products-- the demand for which rarely, if ever, decreases-- opens the door for horrible abuses, such as this $500 EpiPen issue.
The demand for pharmaceuticals and medical devices is linked to either quality of life, or even survival. The medical industry, IMHO, is an exception to a "market will cure all" philosophy. I am a Libertarian for a large percentage of issues, but this is something I take issue with.
https://alibertarianfuture.com...
Apple is actually pretty transparent about which apps are accessing your location (or, it seems to be). I noticed the location services icon a few times when I thought it didn't make sense, but I was able to see which app had recently used the location services and disabled it. Problem solved. The annoying location thing with Apple is that Siri can't search the web without location turned on (or at least, she couldn't the last time I tried, which was a relatively long time ago). So, I don't use Siri for that. The App Store doesn't access my location services as far as I can tell.
Regarding Gary Johnson and Libertarians in general: I like the fact that there is debate within the Libertarian Party about what the government should and shouldn't do. That debate is so much more likely to eventually resolve what's wrong with Government than the 10-second R and D soundbyte issues that appeal to short-term populist b.s. to gain votes (and that will probably be abandoned shortly after the election).
It is correct to say that Gary Johnson disagrees with some of the Libertarian platform, and if you dig into some of his interviews online, you will see that he does not shy away from it. Thank goodness that strict dogmatic adherance to a single platform isn't required for his LP candidacy, as that is what ultimately makes R's and D's so unappealing to me, as an independent voter. For instance, Johnson strongly supports the 2nd ammendment, but does not agree with the LP's laissez-faire stance on guns.
As far as the "forced to make wedding cakes"-- Johnson is wary of the government's role in forcing political correctness down people's throats; however, he again deviates from the LP platform by acknowledging that, at some point, a civilized society shouldn't tolerate intollerance. Of course, the Jew/Nazi example is an emotional hot button, which predictably causes some groans in your video clip, but seriously? Businesses must be licensed by the government and, as such, *should* be required to honor the Civil Rights of human beings. The pretext of the discussion in your video clip was the ability for a baker to deny gay couples wedding cakes, and Johnson thinks that denying someone services based on the (negative perception/hatred/disagreement) of them is bad. And he retains consistency with his point-of-view on the Jew/Nazi example.
I like the phrase I've heard in a few different spots now: Johnson would be "the adult in the room" if he were to be included in the debates.
We can't ever elect a third party in a major race because of our broken system.
Thanks for the info, dude. Here is Penn Jillette's response to you, which I think pretty much says it all: https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-election/penn-jillette-two-words-anyone-saying-youre-wasting-vote/.
Your philosophy is basically, "Even though the system sucks, I don't have the sack to try and change stuff. Voting for a winner is much more important."
The 2-party system is a meme, and "wasted vote" people are unwittingly compliant cliches. Lots of people believe that the 2-party system is unbreakable (based solely on the results of many 2-party-rigged election cycles), and it is self-perpetuating because people willingly and ignorantly claim-- as fact-- that a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote.
Not only that, but participants in/members of the 2-party system have rigged elections such that it is rare for The People to gain exposure to 3rd-party viewpoints. Exposure is tied directly to national polls that exclude 3rd party names, and the two-party election debate committee promotes the exclusion of 3rd parties from televised debates based solely on those statistics!
If you really want to understand what a wasted vote is, consider: Voting for a "loser" in your district is a "wasted vote" because of the electoral college. But, who can know who will win or lose to begin with (assuming the election is legally conducted)?
It is damaging to USA to continue perpetuating this meme. Decide what your issues are, and vote for the candidate you truly believe in. We should all cross our fingers that a 3rd party candidate (I support Johnson--fiscally conservative, socially liberal) can participate in televised debates this year so that we can see some common sense: intelligently presented issues and viewpoints outside the scope of a carefully crafted "soundbyte."
I not only reject the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils (which is what I suppose I would do if I believed a 3rd party vote were a waste), but I also think that it is a tremendously short-sighted approach to democracy and an insult toward progress in general. In the worst case scenario, your 3rd party vote could bolster a statistic that demonstrates the growth of a discontent with binary politics; and, possibly, increase support for whichever party you believe in.
The 2-party system is a meme, and "wasted vote" people are sheeple following it. It is a meme in that lots of people believe that the 2-party system is unbreakable (based solely on the results of many 2-party-rigged election cycles), and it is self-perpetuating because people are willing to ignorantly claim-- as fact-- that a vote for a 3rd party is a wasted vote.
Not only that, but participants in/members of the 2-party system have rigged elections such that it is rare for people to gain exposure to 3rd-party viewpoints, because exposure is tied directlly to national polls, which traditionally don't even include 3rd parties to begin with.
If you really want to look at what a wasted vote is, voting for a "loser" in your district is a "wasted vote" because of the electoral college. But who can know who will win or lose to begin with?
It is damaging to US politics to continue perpetuating this meme. Decide what your issues are, and vote for the candidate you truly believe in. We should all cross our fingers that a 3rd party candidate (I support Johnson) can participate in televised debates this year so that we can see some common-sense, intelligently presented issues and viewpoints outside the scope of a "soundbyte."
I not only reject the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils (which is what I suppose I would do if I believed a 3rd party vote were a waste), but I also think that it is a short-sighted and unintelligent approach to democracy in general. In the worst case scenario, your 3rd party vote will bolster a statistic that can demonstrate the growth of a general discontent with binary politics; and, possibly, increase support for whichever party you believe in.