|
SurgicalOntologist posted:In this cycle the argument that gets me closest to voting for Hillary (again, excepting "there's a possibility my state goes the other way") is purely out of spite for Trump. Just to maximize how upset he gets, because that will be satisfying. But is that really less selfish than voting third-party for my conscience? Yes, because Trump's loss is a good thing for everyone in the country.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
Maybe I wasn't clear. I was talking about voting for Hillary to maximize Trump's pain, not to maximize his chances of losing. My vote will not effect his chances of losing. But it will marginally increase his anguish afterward by running up the score.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
That's still good; further delegitimizing Trump by making the difference larger does more damage to him and the Republican party going forward. Since their policies are all massively awful (their party platform is utterly appalling) and harmful to basically everyone, a bigger loss for them just repudiates all that even more. Besides, schadenfreude is delicious and it'll be even better if you have a direct hand in it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
xpostin' good poo poo:straight up brolic posted:Voting 3rd Party is based off the calculus that you can afford to cast a protest vote so that you can tell your friends, family and coworkers about it for the next month as though it was a virtuous act and not you edging the Democratic system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
I'm not going to vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
Penisaurus Sex posted:I generally hold your views politically. I would take a more cynical view under the current system and considering the trajectory of the country. For many of these views, a good proportion of the population shares them as well. However, that's pretty much of no consequence. Even if we were able to get such a Jesus democrat/republican candidate into the system, I don't see how he could craft much real lasting change. That is, we need a lot of Jesuses and there's only so many virgin Marys out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Matthijs85/status/785883661912596480
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
It was like this from 1776 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:xpostin' good poo poo: Ah yes, the "Hillary Clinton Will Protect You From Donald Trump. She Is the Only One Who Can" argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Ah yes, the "Hillary Clinton Will Protect You From Donald Trump. She Is the Only One Who Can" argument. Oh hey you finally made it. Though I can't help but feel like you made this post before and goons who actually use social programs smacked you upside the head for it? Eh. I'm sure it'll come up soon enough. Welcome! I got a new title and a user is ignoring me thanks to this thread, so it's quite a party! Wish I could say the same about the Greens, but oh well!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:I'm not going to vote. This is support for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:This is support for Trump. My vote doesn't matter anyway and I'm not voting for Hillary. fart simpson fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Oct 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:My vote doesn't matter anyway and I'm not voting for Hillary. You know there's local elections to vote for also, that very much do matter, and where your vote has a much larger impact?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You know there's local elections to vote for also, that very much do matter, and where your vote has a much larger impact? Yes and I'm registering for an absentee ballot so I can vote yes on the ranked voting, marijuana legalization, and minimum wage increase measures. I meant I'm not voting for president.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:Yes and I'm registering for an absentee ballot so I can vote yes on the ranked voting, marijuana legalization, and minimum wage increase measures. I meant I'm not voting for president. Well literally no one could have parsed that from your "2edgy4me" post of "I'm not voting."
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
This is the 3rd party presidential voting thread, not the local election thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Ah yes, the "Hillary Clinton Will Protect You From Donald Trump. She Is the Only One Who Can" argument. But we are obligated to vote for Hillary or we'll cause Donald Trump to win and then he will end the "continued existence" of "women, minorities, and marginalized"! You care about women? Gone, they no longer exist! That's what a Donald Trump presidency apparently means. It's a totally serious argument and in no way the liberal mirror of the perennial Tea Party caterwauling about how this election(2008/2012/2016) is the most important election ever because the evil Obama/Hillary will destroy America, so vote for McCain/Romney/Trump or you're with the terrorists!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Donald Trump has more policies than busy hands y'know. Did we all forget about the incredibly racist and unconstitutional Muslim immigration ban? Bleh, who cares except Muslims amiright?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
Why do people think they can send a message with voting? Beyond the level where no one can discern your motives from your number being tabulated for Dr. Jill Stein or whatever, individual votes don't matter. They're fungible. When an election comes down to a single vote, it doesn't matter who casts the deciding vote. Voting is a collective political action, not an individualist one. That's not to say that you can't vote based on your conscience or whatever, but don't confuse that with "sending a message." If you wanted to send a message by voting, you'd have to coordinate and so on in order to provide the context necessary to explain why there were 20,000 write-in votes for Donald Duck for President and what that means, so you're back to writing letters and joining political organizations and the like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:But we are obligated to vote for Hillary or we'll cause Donald Trump to win and then he will end the "continued existence" of "women, minorities, and marginalized"! You care about women? Gone, they no longer exist! That's what a Donald Trump presidency apparently means. Minimizing white nationalism, what a surprise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Why do people think they can send a message with voting? Political parties exist to do one thing: get elected. They do this by trying to get the most votes. If a major party sees that 5% of the votes are going to the "legalize jaywalking" third party, then they know that that's 5% votes that they can potentially capture by adopting a "legalize jaywalking" stance, thus getting an edge over the other big party. Of course, they might lose more voters from the "death penalty for jaywalkers" camp if they do this, so it all depends on the specifics. This is what people mean when they say that voting third party "sends a message". If everybody votes for the two major parties, there is no reason for either of them to ever consider taking a different stance on jaywalking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Political parties exist to do one thing: get elected. They do this by trying to get the most votes. If a major party sees that 5% of the votes are going to the "legalize jaywalking" third party, then they know that that's 5% votes that they can potentially capture by adopting a "legalize jaywalking" stance, thus getting an edge over the other big party. Of course, they might lose more voters from the "death penalty for jaywalkers" camp if they do this, so it all depends on the specifics. This is what people mean when they say that voting third party "sends a message". If everybody votes for the two major parties, there is no reason for either of them to ever consider taking a different stance on jaywalking. Right, which is why Hillary didn't change a single thing in her platform after her primaries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Political parties exist to do one thing: get elected. They do this by trying to get the most votes. If a major party sees that 5% of the votes are going to the "legalize jaywalking" third party, then they know that that's 5% votes that they can potentially capture by adopting a "legalize jaywalking" stance, thus getting an edge over the other big party. Of course, they might lose more voters from the "death penalty for jaywalkers" camp if they do this, so it all depends on the specifics. This is what people mean when they say that voting third party "sends a message". If everybody votes for the two major parties, there is no reason for either of them to ever consider taking a different stance on jaywalking. But in phenomenological reality, there are no third parties with single-issue stances that gain any traction in national elections. The closest examples are the pro-segregation campaigns, which, um, are not a good example for many reasons. So when you vote for the Greens, are you voting that way because you believe vaccines cause autism, wi-fi causes cancer, and nuclear medicine should be banned? Or are you voting that way because you really like their "capitalism but with more co-ops" economics platform? Or are you voting that way because you're pacifistic on foreign policy? Or because you've been taught to believe that you protest-vote on the left by voting Green? Hell, even if you're voting for Comrade La Riva or the loving Trot dipshit, are you voting for them as a protest vote or as a positive affirmation of socialist politics? So why should you assume that people will take the message you intend? Is it because Democratic policymakers are untrustworthy on everything except this single thing, magically? Or is it because you've got a psychological need to believe that filling in the ballot next to GREEN PARTY has some positive political effect beyond being a way to feel less guilty about your complicity in American empire?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Also, as someone I was reading put it earlier, a vote is not an oath of fealty. You can vote for the better of the two real options and still oppose some of their actions or policies and try to hold them accountable in their term. You don't have to support everything about them to vote for them, particularly if you're doing so instead of a far, far worse option you want to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So when you vote for the Greens, are you voting that way because you believe vaccines cause autism, wi-fi causes cancer, and nuclear medicine should be banned? Or are you voting that way because you really like their "capitalism but with more co-ops" economics platform? Or are you voting that way because you're pacifistic on foreign policy? Or because you've been taught to believe that you protest-vote on the left by voting Green? I can't really speak for why anyone votes third party or for any party at all, but I think it makes sense to put the onus of figuring that out on the major parties courting these votes, because after all they're going to have to do it if they want them, and they have the means and the budget to do this kind of analysis, which they already do. Maybe they'll find out that people vote third party because vaccine autism really matters to a lot of people and they'll start courting votes on that issue, or maybe they'll realize that there is growing mistrust in and rejection of the institutions of liberal capitalism, so they'll make an effort to channel that popular discontent towards fascistic theatrics and away from anything that would actually threaten the power of the ruling class. I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I can't really speak for why anyone votes third party or for any party at all, but I think it makes sense to put the onus of figuring that out on the major parties courting these votes, because after all they're going to have to do it if they want them, and they have the means and the budget to do this kind of analysis, which they already do. So, in other words, you concede that you're not sending a message when you vote third-party, you're hoping that the major parties will divine your beliefs correctly. That's a hell of a way to run a railroad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, in other words, you concede that you're not sending a message when you vote third-party, you're hoping that the major parties will divine your beliefs correctly. That's a hell of a way to run a railroad. All I was doing was trying to answer the question "Why do people think they can send a message with voting?" Now I don't personally have a problem with politicians having to work for people's votes. I think that's kind of the point of democracy. I don't think voters owe political parties loyalty, effort, or anything else. However, as my previous post indicated, I also think that the work politicians do to earn votes can often involve misleading voters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:All I was doing was trying to answer the question "Why do people think they can send a message with voting?" You did a pretty ambiguous job of that, since you seemed to be arguing for the truthfulness of a statement rather than whether it's considered truthful by people. But I see that we're retreating into platitudes about how political passivity is apparently a good thing. Funny thing for a socialist to argue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I can't really speak for why anyone votes third party or for any party at all, but I think it makes sense to put the onus of figuring that out on the major parties courting these votes, because after all they're going to have to do it if they want them, and they have the means and the budget to do this kind of analysis, which they already do. I gotta say that "I'm mad but it's you're job to figure out why!" is certainly a unique political position to take. Unfortunately it'll be about as effective in politics as it is in relationships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
It's really bothersome how my attempts at explaining a thing get automatically read as taking a stance that I never actually took. Personally I think that I know quite well why I am "mad", but I also know that I can know this because I have been privileged enough to receive the space and time to educate myself and acquire an understanding of society, economics, politics, etc that allows me to develop an analysis of what the problems are. I know that a lot of people are mad and have not been blessed with such an education, and I do not consider their anger to be any less legitimate for that reason. To whatever extent I play the role of a "politician" in my life, I do consider it my responsibility to take this anger seriously, and to figure out what I can do to address it to the best of my ability. Brainiac Five posted:But I see that we're retreating into platitudes about how political passivity is apparently a good thing. Funny thing for a socialist to argue. I think part of where our misunderstanding lies is in what we consider to be political activity and where voting fits in that. I consider political passivity to be a very bad thing, I want to encourage people to be as politically active as they can. (But not because they "owe" that activity to politicians, that would be absurd. If we owe political involvement to anyone it's to each other.). I consider the act of voting to be at the very bottom of what consists political activity, barely above doing nothing at all. It seems that some people consider voting to be near the apex of possible political action for citizens, and I this is something I disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I think part of where our misunderstanding lies is in what we consider to be political activity and where voting fits in that. I consider political passivity to be a very bad thing, I want to encourage people to be as politically active as they can. (But not because they "owe" that activity to politicians, that would be absurd. If we owe political involvement to anyone it's to each other.). I consider the act of voting to be at the very bottom of what consists political activity, barely above doing nothing at all. It seems that some people consider voting to be near the apex of possible political action for citizens, and I this is something I disagree with. You keep talking about "owing activity to politicians" and I don't know who's saying this but it isn't me and I disavow anything so stupid. Anyways, dog, you're arguing that politicians should actively appeal to people to vote: "Now I don't personally have a problem with politicians having to work for people's votes. I think that's kind of the point of democracy. I don't think voters owe political parties loyalty, effort, or anything else." Which, given that voting is the bare minimum of political participation, doesn't really suggest active involvement with politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:This is support for Trump. The amount of contempt I have for this kind of self-righteousness is astounding. According to a bunch of people in this thread, taking any action besides voting for Hillary Clinton and singing her praises is actually a vote for Trump and automatically makes you a racist, mysoginist piece of human garbage. Voting for Trump is supporting Trump, which I'm half tempted to do out of spite at this point, since hey, I guess I was supporting him already by bringing up some of Clinton's shittier aspects.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
J Corp posted:The amount of contempt I have for this kind of self-righteousness is astounding. OK. Don't let the door hit you in the rear end on your way out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
J Corp posted:I am a racist, mysoginist piece of human garbage. condensed
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
In my experience, the people who act like taking any action besides voting for Hillary Clinton and singing her praises is actually a vote for Trump are the same people who are now donating to the gofundme campaign to rebuild the republican office that got firebombed in North Carolina.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:In my experience, the people who act like taking any action besides voting for Hillary Clinton and singing her praises is actually a vote for Trump are the same people who are now donating to the gofundme campaign to rebuild the republican office that got firebombed in North Carolina. I don't know what to tell you beyond getting better friends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:In my experience, the people who act like taking any action besides voting for Hillary Clinton and singing her praises is actually a vote for Trump are the same people who are now donating to the gofundme campaign to rebuild the republican office that got firebombed in North Carolina. So they're good people? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So they're good people? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. "good people" Sorry but I reject your self-righteous moral purity and prefer to choose the "lesser evil" of not donating money to the republican party
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
J Corp posted:The amount of contempt I have for this kind of self-righteousness is astounding. Cool. And?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
J Corp posted:The amount of contempt I have for this kind of self-righteousness is astounding. This is how it's been going lately. My friends and family are taking this stance. It's a shame that we've come to attacking each other's characters for not supporting the same candidate. Voting Clinton? You're an America hating little bitch. Voting Trump? You're a piece of human garbage. Voting third party? You're a selfish fuckhead who wants Trump/Clinton to win. God drat I hate politics. This election can't end soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:16
|
|
