AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.

Who would you vote for?

  • Donald Trump

  • Hillary Clinton

  • Bernie Sanders

  • Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)

  • Jill Stein (Green Party)

  • Other

  • None


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn't going to touch this because it bores me to tears, but I will just so you don't think that if people don't engage you it must be because they are autoritarians incapable of using their imagination to challenge the current system. The fact that I am not a lolbertarian doesn't mean I haven't carefully considered every one of your arguments.

The thing is I considered myself a libertarian about 6 or 7 years ago. And then realized that it is one of those ideas that looks pretty cool on paper and makes you sound smart but it is based on an incomplete, reductionist view of humanity. If implemented, the libertarian dream (especially the an-cap dream really) will make civilized society break down. Most libertarians eventually make it to this realization on their own, which is why the majority grow out of this phase by the time they reach 30. Hence the fedora tipping meme. We use it to laugh at people like an-caps and atheists because they think they are being incredibly smart and usually are just inexperienced.

View attachment 64533

How do you reach this conclusion? Why do I believe libertarianism is a reductionist view of society? Because many libertarians and every an-cap I have met believe that individuals exist in a vacuum. They also believe that the sum of everyone's self interest will somehow produce an organized and healthy society on its own. They completely fail to see that humans are double-natured. Man has an individual dimension (like dogs or gorillas for example) and they do act on it about half the time, but we also have a communal dimension (like bees and ants) that seek to form highly complex societies in which the individuals get lost. To a libertarian that second dimension is interpreted as an infringement on the individual liberties, since communities do require individuals suppress their individuality in favor of the community sometimes. And doing so allows us to organize and create incredibly complex and successful societies.

Libertarians also believe transactions are not affected by customs and traditions. They believe the only one that can oppress people is the State. In reality people can oppress other people without the State's intervention. The State is useful in those cases as it will act as a barrier to guarantee that one person cannot take advantage of another. Another example of this selective blindness comes with customs. Libertarians don't see custom as an important factor within society. It is what makes them think that "two people can agree voluntarily on a contract, if you don't like it, don't sign it! but why make the State interfere and remove freedoms for the people?". The problem here is you don't understand customs shape interactions every single time, and some customs are incredibly unfair to the point that sometimes the State must regulate them. Same thing happens with power imbalance. To give you an example of this, people who own property have an advantage over people who do not. Everyone needs to live somewhere so landlords tend to have the upper hand. In most states in the US the custom is that the landlord will ask for 1st month, last month, and security deposit. Meaning that you have to give them 3 full months in order to be able to move into the apartment. Then, he can show the apartment to whomever he wants while you are renting it and he can even use his key to enter your apartment while you aren't there as long as he gives you 1 day notice. In my opinion this is incredibly abusive and I hate to sign leases like this. The State doesn't make it illegal for me to make the landlord a proposal to rent giving him only the security deposit and 1st month, and not letting him show the apartment until I am gone. I am free to do it. But guess what? No landlord wants to sign a contract like this with me, because even when it is completely reasonable and it is the way it is done in Europe and elsewhere, in the US this isn't customary. So nobody signs. And since nobody signs with me I need to suck it up and sign these terms or else I will be living in the streets. This is obviously not the worse case of this, just the example I came up with since I discussed this with another lolbertarian recently.

Another example of why lolbertarianism fails in practice is the fact that it considers that every individual is exactly equal and they are all good people. If you think everyone will make the exact same choices you will then it stands to reason that a completely free society will work. But guess what? Not everyone is like you, not everyone is good natured, or bound to the same circumstances, and people take advantage of situations when they can even if it will fuck others over. An example of this is rich young people with no roots like me. I am a nomad. Since I am a nomad and I have enough money to move wherever the fuck I want whenever I want to, I could go into any country, exploit circumstances that will give me an advantage, screw society over and then leave. The consequences of my reckless behavior will be shouldered by the laymen. People who don't have the same opportunities as me, who are tied to a job and a house they bought, who have a family to raise, and cannot move to a different place. They are stuck with the results of my shitty behavior. An example would be this: a person such as me but with 100 times more money could back a socialist candidate who plans to control the currency, donate millions to his campaign, have him win and then manipulate currency to make a shitload of money in the process. Society will be incredibly fucked after when their currency is worth nothing and their savings are halved overnight, but the rich nomad will have made a fuckton and he can then up and move someplace else with the spoils of this. Lolbertarian valhalla can't prevent society from these shit scenarios, and a strong State can.

I could go on and on about this and explain how a libertarian society would completely break down, but like I said it is boring cause it is going over issues that I consider to be tired and this post is already a boring brickwall of text that I doubt more than 2 people would read.

View attachment 64534

Brilliant, Mila. (no sarcasm) The best thing you've ever written here.

I had earlier planned to post a short statement about my frustration with the arguments between anarchists/extreme libertarians, and everyone else. It is tiresome, because neither side ever budges. And that the reason for this seeming inability to agree is the lack of common fundamental assumptions. For anarchists/libertarians, the individual has absolute primacy; for most everyone else, community is considered indispensable, if not the most important unit of humanity.

The Enlightenment ideals this country was founded on are very individualistic, emphasizing individual liberty and rights. The founding fathers of the USA still assumed that these individuals would be living together in a civil society. So, the tension between individual and societal interests is part of the system's intentional design, even though it leads to conflict. Community-oriented people and individualists will both find it unsatisfying. Everyone in between will find it frustrating at times, as society and government move toward one extreme or the other, and then back. To me, that's a feature, not a bug. It seems to be the best compromise possible between individual primacy and societal/community primacy.
 
I am still relatively undecided this election. Trump gained some points with me in his convention acceptance speech. IMO, he came across as more human than I had given him credit for. Hillary is perhaps the most corrupt politician is US history and absolutely do not want to see her as our next POTUS. I like Johnson/Weld. If they are left out of the debates, I believe few will even give them a glance. If they are invited to the debates, it could be interesting?
 
Just found this old pic of HRC...

View attachment 64536

How can something so vile be so pretty
To be clear, I don't have a problem with the Libertarian party existing just with the idea that the value I, or anyone puts on freedom, is somehow diminished by not agreeing with their thought train. IMO, the only people who can benefit from the Libertarian party's plans are those who are already rich enough to cover everything they'll ever need, live among only those who have everything they'll ever need and have a tall gate around their community. I don't fit that. I don't want to fit that. I don't have a gate, and I wouldn't even let a stray cat wander past my house without being fed.


It wasn't meant to make it better. You don't need to explain to me what I said.

I consider myself to be libertarian in many regards and I respect your opinion. I am certainly not rich, but I would definitely feed any stray cats that wander near my house...In fact have adopted a few. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JickyJuly and Gen
If you're curious why you think Trump is the best candidate, check this:



I watched this clip, and I have to admit that I think that's the first time I've heard Trump speak! I don't have a TV (yes, I'm one of those people), and I get my news mostly online (reading only; news videos are like TV news: slow and boring), and from a few print magazines such as The New Yorker and Commonweal. So, I had a sense of how Trump talks, but I have to admit that watching him on the video left me with a more favorable impression than I was expecting. Of course, when you analyze his use of language, the illusion dissipates.

Still, in his speech, Trump projects certitude, confidence, spontaneity and engagement/enthusiasm. This article from October 2015 looks at the psychological aspects of Trump's appeal, and it has mostly to do with how he talks. I think if I watched Trump unfiltered, and didn't read so much critical commentary and analysis, I would be more favorably disposed to him. I'm not saying that this explain's all of Trump's support, but it is an advantage he has over his opponents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mila_
Except where I directly did? It's theft. It's the seizure of wealth backed up by the force of the state. If you refuse to pay, they will send people with guns to your home and throw you in a cage.
They're not going to "send people with guns to your home and throw you in cage". There are plenty of people who don't pay their taxes that I know personally (whom I consider scum but that's another topic entirely) and they're walking around free as a bird. The government might put a lien on your property or be required to pay a penalty but no one is enacting physical violence on you for not paying taxes. Now if you're especially wealthy you could be jailed if the government believes you're intentionally committing fraud (ya know, a crime) but the average person (you or I) is not being assaulted by the government over taxes.

http://money.usnews.com/money/perso...02/20/what-happens-if-you-dont-pay-your-taxes
 
I watched this clip, and I have to admit that I think that's the first time I've heard Trump speak! I don't have a TV (yes, I'm one of those people), and I get my news mostly online (reading only; news videos are like TV news: slow and boring), and from a few print magazines such as The New Yorker and Commonweal. So, I had a sense of how Trump talks, but I have to admit that watching him on the video left me with a more favorable impression than I was expecting. Of course, when you analyze his use of language, the illusion dissipates.

Still, in his speech, Trump projects certitude, confidence, spontaneity and engagement/enthusiasm. This article from October 2015 looks at the psychological aspects of Trump's appeal, and it has mostly to do with how he talks. I think if I watched Trump unfiltered, and didn't read so much critical commentary and analysis, I would be more favorably disposed to him. I'm not saying that this explain's all of Trump's support, but it is an advantage he has over his opponents.
Yes, it also shows that he's not the idiot many of us have assumed. His bizarre way of talking is calculated...he's a huckster and a snake oil salesman...and very good at it. What makes him scary is this all adds up to him being a dangerous demagogue.
 
Political and controversial topics bring out the long-winded ACFers. :D

Indeed it do :D ... I remember well all of the complaining about dear ol Camstory and his lengthy posts. At least they had some chuckles in them.
 
  • Funny!
Reactions: Gen
Indeed it do :D ... I remember well all of the complaining about dear ol Camstory and his lengthy posts. At least they had some chuckles in them.

Those long, dense posts remind me (as if I needed reminding) that my eyes aren't what they used to be. Thankfully, there's always Command (or Ctrl ) +++++
 
Yes, it also shows that he's not the idiot many of us have assumed. His bizarre way of talking is calculated...he's a huckster and a snake oil salesman...and very good at it. What makes him scary is this all adds up to him being a dangerous demagogue.

Agreed, except I don't think it's calculated. A couple of observations that stood out in the profile of The Art of the Deal ghostwriter are: (1) Trump has a very short attention span, and (2) He doesn't read books (requires sustained attention for too long). The writer, Tony Schwartz, tried doing conventional interviews with Trump, without success. He finally resorted to following Trump around, sitting in his meetings, listening to both sides of his phone calls, being a fly on the wall in an effort to understand his subject.
 
Agreed, except I don't think it's calculated. A couple of observations that stood out in the profile of The Art of the Deal ghostwriter are: (1) Trump has a very short attention span, and (2) He doesn't read books (requires sustained attention for too long). The writer, Tony Schwartz, tried doing conventional interviews with Trump, without success. He finally resorted to following Trump around, sitting in his meetings, listening to both sides of his phone calls, being a fly on the wall in an effort to understand his subject.
Yeah, not so much intense thinking and plotting as being very good at on the spot calculations. Sean Hannity is another one I've noticed that is very good at retort and destroying his guest with nonsense.
 
They're not going to "send people with guns to your home and throw you in cage". There are plenty of people who don't pay their taxes that I know personally (whom I consider scum but that's another topic entirely) and they're walking around free as a bird. The government might put a lien on your property or be required to pay a penalty but no one is enacting physical violence on you for not paying taxes. Now if you're especially wealthy you could be jailed if the government believes you're intentionally committing fraud (ya know, a crime) but the average person (you or I) is not being assaulted by the government over taxes.

http://money.usnews.com/money/perso...02/20/what-happens-if-you-dont-pay-your-taxes

So, the fact that the government does not enforce its own laws does not mean it cannot. They absolutely can arrest you for failure to pay taxes, simply because folks get away with it doesn't change the fact the laws are on the books. The article you link even says as much, it simply notes that if you're not extremely wealthy the government may not bother. Doesn't change the inherent violence of the taxes THEMSELVES, because it is no less not voluntary simply because they don't ALWAYS drag you off for failure to pay into a protection racket.

Everything the government does is backed up by physical force. This is an implicit concept that must be understood. If you are giving the state power, what you're saying is they may use violence to enforce whatever that is.

You're missing the entire point here. Taxation is involuntary seizure of property. IE: it's theft. What the thief does with the money does not make it any less theft, because there was no consent involved in the taking of the wealth. Theft is a violent act. Highly efficient theft is still theft. And theft is, again, violence.
 
Taxation is involuntary seizure of property. IE: it's theft. What the thief does with the money does not make it any less theft, because there was no consent involved in the taking of the wealth. Theft is a violent act. Highly efficient theft is still theft. And theft is, again, violence.

MD3scMjJ2MGW1U-I1CS9hw-wide.jpg
 
Do you work at being insufferable and showing you can't actually make arguments or does it come naturally?

Yes. I just joined the Insufferable People syndicate and we are working towards stealing some juicy benefits.
 
I feel like, regardless of your political affiliation, if taxes simply went towards roads and welfare programs, most probably wouldn't bother complaining, as it would be such a minuscule burden compared to how it is now. I'm against taxes on principal, but if it was just that, I'd shrug my shoulders and go "eh, next issue."
 
I have little issue paying taxes except for a few instances where they are completely fucked up. My family has a TON of land. At one point in time, the government eminent Domained our asses and put power lines up. Now loads of perfectly useful land is "condemned" so that we can only grow hay on it because of the towers. That's pretty much it.

My papaw STILL has to pay property taxes on it. Even though he can't even fucking use it. That's nonsense. If they want to put towers and Power lines there, do it, fine, whatever. But don't expect my grandfather to keep paying for land you won't let him use. That's absurd.

Edit: I should also mention they won't outright buy the land from him either. They'll take it from him should he stop paying taxes, but they won't purchase it from him. I think they gave him a small amount of money when they placed the lines up, but not much
 
Last edited:
I feel like, regardless of your political affiliation, if taxes simply went towards roads and welfare programs, most probably wouldn't bother complaining, as it would be such a minuscule burden compared to how it is now. I'm against taxes on principal, but if it was just that, I'd shrug my shoulders and go "eh, next issue."

I like your post because I think that while you do disagree with taxation on principle you agree that there are conditions under which you would be okay with paying them. There are so many reasons to be angry at tax policy that have to do with the actual purpose of taxes and not with some reductionist concept like saying all taxation is theft.

My personal perspective on this issue is I would be the happiest paying for taxes if:

1) It was no more than 5% of my income
2) All wasteful Big Government initiatives were cut off
3) It was used towards welfare, primary education, basic health care system, maintenance of public spaces like parks and libraries, and a strong military. Basically, things that would guarantee a minimum quality of life for the citizens.
4) It was used ONLY for the nationals. No foreigners, no residents. Getting nationality should require living in the country for at least 10 years as a legal immigrant, perfect command of language, integration, and possibly marriage/offspring with a national (model after Japan immigration law) I don't want to subsidize universal gibsmedats.

But this is not a reality right now. Sadly. So I try to pay as little taxes as possible considering my government is paying millions of euros on shit like funding a map of the clitoris or building an airport that cost millions of Euros in the middle of nowhere (this happened I swear, not making this shit up), we have a model of universal gibsmedats so there is a serious number of Muhammads living off our system and thinking about beheading my neighbor on his morning commute, plus taxes for the ultra rich are at a bit over 50% and the ultra-rich here is anyone who makes over 200k euros a year. Someone making that kind of money would be working from january to july without receiving a penny as a serf for the State. Fucking nuts.
 
gibsmedats

I thought I'd define this word for everyone else in this thread, because I had to look it up, and I don't know if this is something most people know and I just live under a rock and only talk to people with generally good opinions of racial minorities, but this is something I had never heard of before. To be clear on the classiness of this term, the first result is from Urban Dictionary, and was from what I could tell, the only result on the 1st search page that didn't also contain use of the n word and/or other explicitly racist terms, though it was still a slightly troubling page, even without the n word being tossed around. This is what Urban Dictionary said about this word:

81v9N00.png

----

Also, Mila, when was the last time someone was beheaded IN the United States by a Muslim?... I'll wait. Come on, you're so much smarter than that. That's some fear mongering bullshit. You're a smart woman, but man, why you so scared of Muslims? They're just people.

Edit: I realize now that you are talking about your own country. I don't know if there have been beheadings in your country recently, if so, do tell.
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet: Trump's statement at a news conference today:

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html

DORAL, Fla. — Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen, essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference here in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton’s deleted emails. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

-----

To me, this is completely off the map in terms of the type of conduct and judgement that one would expect/demand from a president. However, I'm interested to see how Trump supporters explain it away. (BTW, I watched the video, and he wasn't joking--though that wouldn't have been much better.)
 
I feel like Mila could say she hopes cancer gets cured soon and someone here would try to pick it apart. I get that she's not the most tactful, but it gets old to watch.
 
I thought I'd define this word for everyone else in this thread, because I had to look it up, and I don't know if this is something most people know and I just live under a rock and only talk to people with generally good opinions of racial minorities, but this is something I had never heard of before. To be clear on the classiness of this term, the first result is from Urban Dictionary, and was from what I could tell, the only result on the 1st search page that didn't also contain use of the n word and/or other explicitly racist terms, though it was still a slightly troubling page, even without the n word being tossed around. This is what Urban Dictionary said about this word:

81v9N00.png

----

Also, Mila, when was the last time someone was beheaded IN the United States by a Muslim?... I'll wait. Come on, you're so much smarter than that. That's some fear mongering bullshit. You're a smart woman, but man, why you so scared of Muslims? They're just people.

Edit: I realize now that you are talking about your own country. I don't know if there have been beheadings in your country recently, if so, do tell.

I'm not Mila but I'll take shot at the question. The last time I can recall a muslim beheading someone in the U.S. was in September, 2014 in a food processing plant in Oklahoma.
 
  • Helpful!
Reactions: BlairLuxe
"we have a model of universal gibsmedats " :D

MIla wins the word of the day. :party:

And....
it appears some folks just like to play jailhouse lawyer and argue just for typing practice or something... Where was this forum when i was in typing class?
 
#NeverHillary I'm a veteran and I am against anyone who would willingly put our soldiers at risk and inadvertently killing some of my brothers in arms. She disgusts me and should be in jail.
I are you suggesting that if she becomes president we're going back to Iraq?
 
Last edited:
I'm not Mila but I'll take shot at the question. The last time I can recall a muslim beheading someone in the U.S. was in September, 2014 in a food processing plant in Oklahoma.

The point is, it's not something that is happening in such a prevalent manner that we should assume all Muslims want to behead us. That's horrible. If I made judgments about groups of people based on every single isolated or rare occurrence of violence, I would have to be scared of everyone. I don't want to live like that.

---

@Guy Hillary is a war hawk, and she has been in favor of all sorts of disastrous interventions in other countries. It's not just about Iraq, but the fact that she can't be trusted to not invade places that we don't belong, and by being like that, she is a risk to the lives of military service members.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.