finally a third party candidate with a different message!!!

[Tamhansen]

Cookie for President!

[OldSchoolGamer]

Just don't post anything serious here about third parties...deviations from political orthodoxy seem to be rather unpopular.

[Will]

It's because Vekseid is a member of the Bilderbergs, and he doesn't want anyone stealing attention from their puppet candidates.

I kid, I kid.

[Callie Del Noire]

It's because Vekseid is a member of the Bilderbergs, and he doesn't want anyone stealing attention from their puppet candidates.

I kid, I kid.

Please don't encourage him.

[Oniya]

*dusts off the 1976 swag*

Get down America - Howard for President.

[Vekseid]

It's because Vekseid is a member of the Bilderbergs, and he doesn't want anyone stealing attention from their puppet candidates.

I kid, I kid.

The only other third party candidate to get their own thread so far on E was Cookie Monster.

Coincidence!?

Just don't post anything serious here about third parties...deviations from political orthodoxy seem to be rather unpopular.

Have you ever actually posed a third party discussion?

[TheGlyphstone]

It's because Vekseid is a member of the Bilderbergs Reptiloids, and he doesn't want anyone stealing attention from their puppet candidates.

I kid, I kid.

Fixed that for you. ;D

The only other third party candidate to get their own thread so far on E was Cookie Monster.

Coincidence!?

Pretty sure someone posted a Cthulhu/Dagon '12 thread a while back. Why Vote For A Lesser Evil?

[Avis habilis]

Pretty sure someone posted a Cthulhu/Dagon '12 thread a while back. Why Vote For A Lesser Evil?

Wait, I thought that was Voldemort/Vader?

[Callie Del Noire]

Wait, I thought that was Voldemort/Vader?

Actually.. I think it would be Chaney/Rove

[TheGlyphstone]

Actually.. I think it would be Chaney/Rove

Wait, I thought that was Voldemort/Vader?

http://www.cthulhu2012.com/campaign/

His Devour All Humanity platform is remarkably adaptable to the key issues facing modern voters.

[Avis habilis]

Truly a being for all seasons.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Have you ever actually posed a third party discussion?

Whenever I broach the idea that the two big parties are controlled by an oligarchy, I get accused of being:

1) "off-topic" (though endless posts about Obama and Romney are fine)
2) a conspiracy nutter, or
3) a "doom and gloomer" (since of course the collapse of the United States=end of humanity, and only fighting for the status quo or something close to it is "positive" and "productive.")

In all fairness, everyone has biases.  I'm certainly not going to claim to be unbiased.  The clear bias here is in favor of the two-party system, apple pie, Chevrolet and (most of all) political orthodoxy.  So I've gotten the message, and taken a step back from political discussions here.  I started a thread on The Walking Dead instead.  Not saying I'll never post in this part of the forums again, but y'all are free to resume two-party fandom and orthodox discussions on approved candidates (maybe on how many times the moderator interrupted Obama versus Romney, or the sartorial tastes of Obama and Romney; I believe their suits were slightly different colors...).

[Callie Del Noire]

Whenever I broach the idea that the two big parties are controlled by an oligarchy, I get accused of being:

1) "off-topic" (though endless posts about Obama and Romney are fine)
2) a conspiracy nutter, or
3) a "doom and gloomer" (since of course the collapse of the United States=end of humanity, and only fighting for the status quo or something close to it is "positive" and "productive.")

In all fairness, everyone has biases.  I'm certainly not going to claim to be unbiased.  The clear bias here is in favor of the two-party system, apple pie, Chevrolet and (most of all) political orthodoxy.  So I've gotten the message, and taken a step back from political discussions here.  I started a thread on The Walking Dead instead.  Not saying I'll never post in this part of the forums again, but y'all are free to resume two-party fandom and orthodox discussions on approved candidates (maybe on how many times the moderator interrupted Obama versus Romney, or the sartorial tastes of Obama and Romney; I believe their suits were slightly different colors...).

Ya know.. you could have posted how the 3rd party candidates are excluded from the debates, examining and showing the numbers of how the mechannism works... OR even how the Green party candidate got ARRESTED yesterday at the Primary grounds.

No.. you talk about the 'man' and 'conspiracies'.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Ya know.. you could have posted how the 3rd party candidates are excluded from the debates, examining and showing the numbers of how the mechannism works... OR even how the Green party candidate got ARRESTED yesterday at the Primary grounds.

No.. you talk about the 'man' and 'conspiracies'.

Not going to rehash it all here.  As I've so often been told, I've said it before, everyone knows where I stand, so why should I say it again?

[Tamhansen]

People people please.

My candidate cookie muncher (no relation to cookie monster) merely wants to bring a new voice against the obama anti cookie machine and the romney puppet death squads.

After all He's a true blue American.

[Will]

Not going to rehash it all here.  As I've so often been told, I've said it before, everyone knows where I stand, so why should I say it again?

I don't mean this to attack you, really.  I actually agree with some of your opinions.  I think it's obvious that we live in a corporate state, but I don't believe there's some vast conspiracy designed to perpetuate corporate control.  It's just unnecessary.  I think you'd get a lot more traction with your ideas if you'd drop that bit.  /shrug

But, anyway... If the Forbes 400 is in control of everything, then why are you so concerned with third parties?  If elections are a sham, then it doesn't matter who's running, right?  You've said yourself, that the closest a third party candidate could ever get to the White House is "a quarry in eastern Virginia" or some such. 

[Vekseid]

Not going to rehash it all here.  As I've so often been told, I've said it before, everyone knows where I stand, so why should I say it again?

Your rehashing about how it's all over, that there's no difference between the major parties, no reason to try to enact any real change, is quite a bit different than trying to find some ground on which a viable third party can be constructed. Defeatist attitudes don't get taken seriously, because it's just letting those who espouse the great union of corporate and government power win. They haven't won. They're more on the back foot now than they were a century ago, and history doesn't suggest they will win, either.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Your rehashing about how it's all over, that there's no difference between the major parties, no reason to try to enact any real change, is quite a bit different than trying to find some ground on which a viable third party can be constructed. Defeatist attitudes don't get taken seriously, because it's just letting those who espouse the great union of corporate and government power win. They haven't won. They're more on the back foot now than they were a century ago, and history doesn't suggest they will win, either.

Let's break this down into its respective parts, shall we?

Your rehashing about how it's all over

I believe I've stated, and more than once, that I do not construe the decline or even outright collapse of the United States to mean "it's all over."  Tying the fortunes of the entire human race, or even industrial civilization, to the future of one nation is an extremely parochial, nationalistic view.  Empires have fallen, the human race goes on.  There were people living reasonably happy, productive lives even in the ruins of Rome.

that there's no difference between the major parties

I stand by that assertion.

no reason to try to enact any real change

Uh...not exactly.  What I mean is there's no reason to try and enact any real change within the framework of the existing system.  More on that:

is quite a bit different than trying to find some ground on which a viable third party can be constructed.

The problem is that, under the current system, a viable third party cannot be constructed.  The same people that own the Democrats and Republicans, own the mass media.  Why else do you think that the Greens, the Socialists, the Constitutionalists, the Libertarians, et. al., get next to zero press coverage?  They also effectively own the Electoral College.  Let's say you have a major state (like California) with 20 million people who vote.  Let's say the state has 20 electors.  8 million people vote Democrat.  7 million, Republican.  5 million, Green.  The system says that the Democrats get ALL of the electors.  The other two parties, even though they got a combined plurality of the vote, get nothing.  This means that 15 million votes are, for all intents and purposes, thrown away.

This is why a third party will never be viable.  The media will be ordered to ignore it, and even if it does manage to get 10 to 20% of the popular vote, those votes will be discarded.  Remember what Stalin said: those who vote, decide nothing, while those who count the votes, decide everything.

Defeatist attitudes don't get taken seriously

I prefer hard realism to fluffy-bunny idealism.  It might not be as sexy and appealing, but it's generally a more reliable "compass" to be guided by in decision-making.

because it's just letting those who espouse the great union of corporate and government power win. They haven't won.

What's your definition of "won?"  Because right now, we live in a country where corporations were ruled by the highest court in the land to have the same rights as people, and where our leaders are part of a global cabal that go to meetings where the militaries of sovereign nations act as their bodyguards.  Sounds awfully much like a "win" to me.

They're more on the back foot now than they were a century ago, and history doesn't suggest they will win, either.

Show me a nation in history that's gone as far down the imperial, money-printing, debt-driven foreign auxiliary/mercenary using path America is going down now, where it ended well.

The bottom line is some people don't like what I post because I tell it like it is, not as they would like it to be.  I'm sure many people here would love to think the good guys are going to win and that gas will be back down to $2 a gallon, the economy will rev up again, and we'll go back to prosperity and respect for human rights in America.  It's an appealing notion.  I'd love to believe it too.  Unfortunately, history far more often proves out the hard-nosed realists than the Pollyannas.  But people prefer the Pollyannas.

[Callie Del Noire]

You know.. I had a three paragraph statement typed up Oldschool.. but then I thought.. why bother? You're missing the point that you always miss. You don't offer anything but the problems. You don't highlight the issues or offer an option. To you.. it's already too late, why bother? That's your message.

I hear that too damn often already. I'm not going to encourage you anymore to look past the straitjacketed outlook you're stuck in.

You win.. I quit. I'm not going to respond to you after this.

[Will]

I don't think it's irrational or defeatist to be concerned about what's going to happen if/when things don't change.

[Oniya]

As the saying goes, 'You must be the change you want to see in the world.'  If you don't try to change things, why should you expect them to change?

[Callie Del Noire]

As the saying goes, 'You must be the change you want to see in the world.'  If you don't try to change things, why should you expect them to change?

Or.. to quote me.. is it better to roll over, close your eyes and give up.. or lean over to the person next to you and start asking 'how can we help?'

[Will]

As the saying goes, 'You must be the change you want to see in the world.'  If you don't try to change things, why should you expect them to change?

And that's true, but positive thinking is not a cure-all.  I'm not saying it's hopeless to try, but it seems almost irresponsible to disregard the possibility of failure.

[Callie Del Noire]

And that's true, but positive thinking is not a cure-all.  I'm not saying it's hopeless to try, but it seems almost irresponsible to disregard the possibility of failure.

Acknowledge it.. sure.

Wallow in it? Please don't.

That is the problem. Not that we might fail. But the constant assumption that we can't SUCCEED is tedious. I know the odds. People have been trying for 60+ years to fix the issues this time around. We have a party which is totally under the thumb of Double-High Authoritarians who will back anyone and pander to any small group to keep control of the party and lie, cheat, steal and commit any number of frauds to disenfranchise their rivals.

I am aware of the problem. Greatly. I got a picture of a little girl who just turned 9 months, I'd prefer to give her a governement that is better than the one I got rather than simply sit by the side and wail that I can't do anything.

That is why I look at the 'other parties' listen to the folks that are likely to get elected and do my part. Giving up won't fix it.

[Oniya]

And that's true, but positive thinking is not a cure-all.  I'm not saying it's hopeless to try, but it seems almost irresponsible to disregard the possibility of failure.

But I'm not talking about positive thinking, but positive action.  It's like, I can sit around and bemoan the fact that all the female costumes on the Halloween shelves involve push-up bras and miniskirts - and those are the ones sized for 6th graders - or I can talk about how there should be costumes that don't make the kids dress like they're 25 and freeze their behinds off - or I can pass out lists of child-friendly costume sites at the PTO meeting.

Am I still going to see far too many girls dressed up like Lindsay Lohan?  Probably.  Is it possible that I'll see a Madame Curie, an Athena, or an Amelia Earhart?  Who knows?

[Will]

But I'm not talking about positive thinking, but positive action.  It's like, I can sit around and bemoan the fact that all the female costumes on the Halloween shelves involve push-up bras and miniskirts - and those are the ones sized for 6th graders - or I can talk about how there should be costumes that don't make the kids dress like they're 25 and freeze their behinds off - or I can pass out lists of child-friendly costume sites at the PTO meeting.

Am I still going to see far too many girls dressed up like Lindsay Lohan?  Probably.  Is it possible that I'll see a Madame Curie, an Athena, or an Amelia Earhart?  Who knows?

Except this is a lot bigger problem than Halloween costumes.

We can do more than one thing at once, right?  We can do our best to clean the filth out of our government, and be as proactive as possible.  But we can also be mindful of the worst case scenario.  Whether you're talking about positive thinking, or positive action, it might not be enough.

That's all I'm saying.  It might not be enough.  Shutting your eyes to that fact is not a virtue.

[Oniya]

Yes, it's bigger than Halloween costumes.  It was the technique that was the important bit, not the chosen issue.  And I don't think that my example showed a 'shutting of eyes' either.  One small improvement is a foothold for another small improvement, and yes, they may be small, but they are improvements.  It's not a case of 'Today, costumes; tomorrow, the world!', but more like 'Today, election reform; tomorrow, tighter fracking laws; next week, better food labeling; [insert whatever]...'

[Callie Del Noire]

Let me sum it up like this.:

"It is alright to be afraid of failure, that means you're going to have to get up and try again; FEARING failure is crawling in a corner and hiding from trying."

[Will]

Yes, it's bigger than Halloween costumes.  It was the technique that was the important bit, not the chosen issue.  And I don't think that my example showed a 'shutting of eyes' either.  One small improvement is a foothold for another small improvement, and yes, they may be small, but they are improvements.  It's not a case of 'Today, costumes; tomorrow, the world!', but more like 'Today, election reform; tomorrow, tighter fracking laws; next week, better food labeling; [insert whatever]...'

I really try to avoid analogies in a debate/discussion situation like this, because they don't ever relate to the issue in a complete way.  If I were going to riff off of yours, though, I would say my point is like... buying jackets for your kids, just in case they can't find a more appropriate costume and have to go out in ones that won't keep them warm.  Sure, it's great to go to the PTA meeting and hand out flyers, and of course you should do that, but it may not solve the problem.  If I were being defeatist, I'd say that the flyers were pointless, and that we should all just say screw the costumes and stay home.

Plan A should, of course, be trying to solve the problem before we reach a tipping point.  But a Plan B would not be a terrible idea.

[Serephino]

Oh, I know it looks pretty hopeless.  I know the whole country could come crashing down.  In fact, I fully expect it to.  Rome fell, and so will every other empire eventually.  That's one thing you can take away from History; nothing lasts forever.  That's not something we can control.

However, I am not the type of person that can throw my hands in the air, declare it's hopeless, and sit on my ass.  Yes, the US may fall in five or ten years should things continue as they are, but that is not now.  What we have control over is right now, and that is what we should focus on.  What we do right now to improve things will effect what happens down the line.  It may not seem like it, but we are where we are right now because of the actions of others.

If Martin Luther King Jr. had bowed down to oppression because it seemed hopeless, and he didn't think there was a point because white people controlled everything, what kind of life do you think minorities would have right now?  Life is better now for homosexual and transgendered people because of those who stood up to bullies and zealots.  E is still here because of people fighting against internet censorship and those that refused to hide their sexuality in a closet.  Instead they stood up and said that we are sexual beings, and we do not have to be ashamed of it.  No one has the right to shut us up because we offend their 'old fashioned family values'.

All we can do is try to secure the best future possible for the next generation.  No, it won't be a utopia, and not every problem will be fixed.  However, it doesn't have to be worst case scenario either.  We do what we can, and hope that the next generation will continue forward with the same ideals.  Major change does not come about overnight, and it certainly doesn't magically fall into our laps.  We have to work for it.       

[Vekseid]

An apology to OSG if/when you read it. I've archived the post if you want to respond.

[Chelemar]

The bottom line is some people don't like what I post because I tell it like it is, not as they would like it to be.  I'm sure many people here would love to think the good guys are going to win and that gas will be back down to $2 a gallon, the economy will rev up again, and we'll go back to prosperity and respect for human rights in America.  It's an appealing notion.  I'd love to believe it too.  Unfortunately, history far more often proves out the hard-nosed realists than the Pollyannas.  But people prefer the Pollyannas.

Not Pollyannas.  OSG.  People who grew up in a country that has ideals that they believe in.  Or at least had ideals that they believed in.  You are asking Americans to throw away their beliefs, like so much garbage.  Have you not heard the saying, "That's like throwing the baby out with the bath water." 

America is our baby is this case.  Our bathwater is dirty, damn straight.  But, we can't all just pick up and move to Canada.  Be realistic yourself.  Oh... snap, let's all retire to Mexico then?  No. 

Running from a problem doesn't fix it either. 

But, we have to have both hope that things can change, and the will to try and change it.  And as Oniya said, small steps lead to larger ones, and still larger.

Even the mighty Mississippi takes it's water from all it's tributaries, no matter how small.

[Stattick]

In the year 1848, Gerrit Smith made women's sufferage (the right for women to vote and hold office) a plank in the Liberty Party's platform. This began the fight for women to vote in the US. Over seventy years later, in 1920, the 19th Amendment was passed, giving women the right to vote and hold office throughout the United States. Women didn't end their fight there. Ever since, they've been fighting for equal rights and treatment.

When my aunt married my uncle in 1979, the bank she was a member of automatically added her new husband to her bank account that she'd had for years there. They said it was policy. They said she had no choice. She fought them. It was her money, that she'd worked for, and he had no right to it, and shouldn't be on the account. She was an independent woman, and she wasn't going to be treated as a child with her own money. She could have meekly laid down, and just let them do as they please. She could have just closed the account (affecting her credit rating in the process), and opened a new account with a more enlightened bank. But you know what she did? She wrote the bank's Board of Directors, using her office's letterhead where she was a legal secretary, and informed them that if they did not change their policy, that she was going to file a class action lawsuit against them. They changed their policy, apologized, and even sent her a fruit basket with a nice Thank You card in it, thanking her for pointing out their backwards and illegal policy, and working with them to change with the times. It was a fairly small thing, but she made the world a little better place then. She effected change, and won a victory for women all through the region (I believe it was a regional bank and not a national bank).

Women still don't make as much money as men do for equal work. But it's getting easier to fight against companies with policies that call for paying women less money for equal work. Things are improving. Granted, it's been a hundred and sixty years since the fight for equal rights for women began in this country. It's been a long and slow fight. But a hell of lot of progress has been made. There's still more work to be done, but as a nation and society, we still keep fighting that fight. Today, it would be unthinkable to tell a recently married woman that she has to have her husband on her checking account. It would be unthinkable to tell a woman that she cannot go to college, become a professional, or that she cannot vote. Each of those is something that's been fought for. Don't try telling me that progress cannot be made.

Just look at the progress in gay rights that's been made in the last thirty years. When I was a senior in high school, an admission of being anything other than hetero normative would have brought a hell of a lot worse than bullying; it could potentially get you killed. I saw it with my own eyes. That was over twenty years ago though. Today, most teens, in most US schools, don't feel the need the to hide it from others if they're attracted to their own sex. Gay and lesbians are just plain accepted in modern day society as a fact of life. Twenty years ago, it might have gotten you strung up. Don't try telling me that progress cannot be made.

This nation had a long, and shameful history of slavery. Men and women were mere property, and there were almost no laws whatsoever to protect those slaves. If you beat your slave to death, people just shrugged. If you raped your slaves, the slave was blamed for your transgression. Slaves technically were freed during the when the south was defeated in war that at the time was called The Slavers' Rebellion. It was renamed The Civil War in most places other than the defeated states, some of which obstinately call it "The War of Northern Aggression", despite the fact that the South started the war by succeeding from the union and marching on the North where they fired the first shots in the war. The war ended in 1865. Of course, African Americans weren't given equal rights. They had their right to vote brutally suppressed in the thrice damned South, where whites wearing white robes and masks regularly lynched blacks who fought for fair treatment and voting rights. Ninety years later, in the 1950's, after nearly a century of fighting for their rights, the Civil Rights Movement started in earnest. Nationwide, people got to see the brutality of the whites through a new medium called television. They got to hear people talking about, "Separate but Equal", and the liberal media started to pay attention to the Jim Crow laws that prevented most blacks from voting. People got to see and hear black leaders such as Martin Luther King, Junior. And things changed. It was a hell of fight, but we broke the Klan's back, got rid of the Jim Crow laws, and eliminated segregation. Black people still get the short end of the stick in this country, but things have gotten a hell of a lot better. There's still a ways to go. But don't try to tell me that progress cannot be made.

Progress takes time. It can take a lifetime. It can take generations. But progress can be made. It's made a little at a time. A woman refuses to sit at the back of the bus in the colored section. A woman refuses to accept her husband's name on her bank account. A musician tells a homophobic world in the 1980's that he's gay. It just takes a little bravery, a willingness to buck the trend. It just takes one person to say, "I will not do as you say, nor conform to your bigoted expectations." It's not enough to wish for change. You have to do something. Be the change you hope for. Every little step, every little victory, is a drop in an ocean of progress, and let me tell you something about my country: the tide's coming in.

[Serephino]

The History books are full of people that made an impact on the world.  There are even dozens more that aren't remembered, but still made a difference.  They didn't do whatever it was they did because they had fluffy bunny ideals, or because they dreamed of being famous.  No, they did it because they felt it was the right thing to do at the time. 

[Tamhansen]

The History books are full of people that made an impact on the world.  There are even dozens more that aren't remembered, but still made a difference.  They didn't do whatever it was they did because they had fluffy bunny ideals, or because they dreamed of being famous.  No, they did it because they felt it was the right thing to do at the time. 

tbh a lot of them did it for wealth fame or power. Great motivator

[Stattick]

tbh a lot of them did it for wealth fame or power. Great motivator

Yes, I'm sure that Rosa Parks sat in the white section of the bus for wealth, fame, and power.  ::)

[Tamhansen]

Actually yes. for power in some sense, she wanted to take away the power white people had over black people.  but you talked about people changing the world. Look at Julius Caesar, Suleiman, or napoleon. They all changed the world. And made it better in alot of ways, but their main goal was one or more of those three things

[TheGlyphstone]

Actually yes. for power in some sense, she wanted to take away the power white people had over black people.  but you talked about people changing the world. Look at Julius Caesar, Suleiman, or napoleon. They all changed the world. And made it better in alot of ways, but their main goal was one or more of those three things

He has a point, though it might be a communication error here. People like Rosa Parks, MLK Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Ghandi, the original Martin Luther, they worked on a different scale, for all that their impact was as far-reaching and long-lasting. They were altruistic and did what they did because it was right, but they didn't shape the world any more or less for that than Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Christopher Columbus, or the 'Robber Barons' of the 19th and early 20th century Americas, all of whom weren't driven by anything resembling goodwill and altruism.

[Stattick]

Actually yes. for power in some sense, she wanted to take away the power white people had over black people.  but you talked about people changing the world. Look at Julius Caesar, Suleiman, or napoleon. They all changed the world. And made it better in alot of ways, but their main goal was one or more of those three things

I really want to reply to this. But something's telling me the response I initially wrote comes too close to the line of civility, if not sprinting right past it. I... think I'll ask staff if I can post what I wrote. If nothing else, at least they'll get a chuckle.

EDIT: Also, I'm self-censoring... considering some of the posts I've made in P & R, that should give one pause.

EDIT: the Editing: On reflection, I've decided not to post what I initially wrote.

[Serephino]

Yes, there is Napoleon, and Hitler, and Julius Caesar.  They sought power, and they had it for a while, but they lost it.  Napoleon was defeated at the battle of Waterloo I think it was, and spent the rest of his life imprisoned.  Hitler, unless you're a big believer in conspiracy theories, committed suicide in a bunker because he did something phenomenally stupid.  Julius Caesar was stabbed to death in the Roman senate. 

They sought power, and they had it for a little while.  Thing is, they fell, and the world moved on.  They only changed the world when they had power.       

[TheGlyphstone]

Yes, there is Napoleon, and Hitler, and Julius Caesar.  They sought power, and they had it for a while, but they lost it.  Napoleon was defeated at the battle of Waterloo I think it was, and spent the rest of his life imprisoned.  Hitler, unless you're a big believer in conspiracy theories, committed suicide in a bunker because he did something phenomenally stupid.  Julius Caesar was stabbed to death in the Roman senate. 

They sought power, and they had it for a little while.  Thing is, they fell, and the world moved on.  They only changed the world when they had power.       

Yet even decades, centuries, or...more centuries later, the changes they made to the world still had effects. Napoleon reshaped 'modern' warfare to a degree that lasted more than a hundred years. To heck with Godwin's Law, let's take Hitler since you mentioned him. He killed himself and his personal influence ended, but if he hadn't ordered the Holocaust, there would be no Israel, which means the Middle East would look vastly different politically, and it's quite possible the Jewish people would still be prejudiced against to this day. Julius Caesar was just one in a long line of Roman Emperors, most of whom died in similar manners, he just became the face of them all - and it's inarguable that Rome was a defining force in shaping the course of history, whatever the motives of its leaders. Just because someone is dead, or someone was evil, doesn't prevent them from shaping the world in long-lasting or good ways.

[Tamhansen]

Yet even decades, centuries, or...more centuries later, the changes they made to the world still had effects. Napoleon reshaped 'modern' warfare to a degree that lasted more than a hundred years. To heck with Godwin's Law, let's take Hitler since you mentioned him. He killed himself and his personal influence ended, but if he hadn't ordered the Holocaust, there would be no Israel, which means the Middle East would look vastly different politically, and it's quite possible the Jewish people would still be prejudiced against to this day. Julius Caesar was just one in a long line of Roman Emperors, most of whom died in similar manners, he just became the face of them all - and it's inarguable that Rome was a defining force in shaping the course of history, whatever the motives of its leaders. Just because someone is dead, or someone was evil, doesn't prevent them from shaping the world in long-lasting or good ways.

To add a few points here. Napoleon also carried out the introduction of the decimal system, reshaped the face of law in those countries using civil law even today, which is basically ever country outside the US and the british Commonwealth.

Hitler's adaptation of the blitzkrieg shaped warfare till this very day, not to mention the inventions done by Messerschmidt and Fokker under his name

Julius Caesar was not just one in a line. He was the first man to become autocratic ruler of the Emire hell without him we'd know it as the roman republic, but what's more is he personally orchestrated the invasion of britain, against the will of the roman senate. And without that invasion the world would be very different.

My point is, many things in our world have been improved because people wanted to make things better for themselves, not out of altruism. Would Rosa Parks have been so adamant about blacks riding in the front, had she been a rich white woman, maybe but probably not. She stood up because she wanted to better her own position, as much as any altruism.

[Stattick]

We haven't been talking about whether people have an optimistic or pessimistic view of humanity. We haven't been talking about whether people ultimately do things because of altruistic reasons, or selfish reasons. That's what you, Katataban & Will, have been talking about. The rest of us said, "You can make a difference in the world. Things do change." And the two of you countered with, "Nuh uh, people are selfish!" It was a non sequitur.

Now, the two of you might be right. People, in general, might be rotten. People might only do things for selfish reasons. The pessimistic view of human nature may turn out to be the true one. I, personally, tend to believe that either most humans are intuitively altruistic or that it's not as simple as it being a binary proposition of humans either being nice or rotten.

But I don't know why either of you are in this thread, fighting for that position, since no one else has said anything else about it. We were talking about social change, not about the nature of humanity. The arguments that the two of you are making are not only wrong, but they're a distraction. Even if you were right that the basic nature of humanity is self serving, even if it bordered on evil, it would still be wrong, because it does not speak to the premise or conclusion of our assertion at all, which is that people can bring about small changes to society, and that many of these small changes can add up to profound changes to society in the long term.

[errantwandering]

I'd much rather vote for Cookie Muncher than Romney or Obama at this point.  He'd do a much better job than both combined, and he'd ensure free access to cookies for all, something that I wish more politicians had in their platforms.

[Tamhansen]

I'd much rather vote for Cookie Muncher than Romney or Obama at this point.  He'd do a much better job than both combined, and he'd ensure free access to cookies for all, something that I wish more politicians had in their platforms.

Hands errant a campaign flyer

And of course a cookie

Remember, all flavour cookie served freely in the military