|
VitalSigns posted:Donald Trump ran on saying things people wanted to hear, this proves that running a boring stuffed-shirt corporate tool that says "better things are impossible because of people like me, you have to vote for me or Trump will win" is a sure-fire strategy. People being gullible morons is a huge problem, yes. Again, he was an obvious liar and con so if people honestly bought his "what people want to hear" garbage then that's another very real problem. So either people voted for him because they believed him (loving lol), they just liked the rest of his platform (the racist and hateful poo poo), or did it to spite Hillary/Democrats (lesser of two evils voting).
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
At best your argument comes down to "Republican leaning voters are more willing to vote for the lesser evil than Democratic leaning voters", in other words "we can be almost as evil as the other guys, they'll have to vote for us regardless" is poor strategy for Democratic politicians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Grimdude posted:did it to spite Hillary/Democrats (lesser of two evils voting). This isn't what lesser of two evils voting refers to. Those people are voting for the greater of two evils to own the libs. Lesser of two evils voting is "fine I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary because she's the lesser of two evils"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This isn't what lesser of two evils voting refers to. A non-zero number of people probably thought Trump was the lesser evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Looking at his foreign policy blunders and how he's losing America's entire sphere of influence like the world's worst Victoria player, I'm gonna say they're correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:A non-zero number of people probably thought Trump was the lesser evil. I know several people exactly like this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:A non-zero number of people probably thought Trump was the lesser evil. he was, esp if you consider we get a shot at someone who might try to push the country leftward in 4 years as opposed to 8 it's almost impossible for him not to be the lesser evil when he hasn't spent 40 years in government where the impact of your evil is magnified thousandsfold
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Hitler is the lesser evil because unlike the perfidious Weimar government, he has never been in power and therefore never killed anyone, no doubt this pattern will continue when he is in power
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hitler is the lesser evil because unlike the perfidious Weimar government, he has never been in power and therefore never killed anyone, no doubt this pattern will continue when he is in power 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Isn't the DNC literally broke because no one wants to donate to them anymore?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Grimdude posted:Donald Trump won in large part because of "lesser of two evils voting" and is still benefiting from that mentality during his presidency. So this thread is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Isn't the DNC literally broke because no one wants to donate to them anymore? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
The key thing about 'lesser of two evils' voting is that most leftists see it as Democrat code for 'So we don't even have to try'. And that's how you get Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:He's talking about whether it's working for the people (like those in this thread) arguing about a lesser-evil approach to voting. Right my point is that as voters, you can choose to vote for the lesser evil for whatever harm reduction that offers, and yes, they will still do the bad things, so that sucks, or you can choose to let the greater evil win and they will do more of the bad things. Or you can vote third party (or not at all), and, this is absolutely key: the greater and lesser evil will not give even the smallest of shits about it. The American voting system doesn't really give you a lot of input into the system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Right my point is that as voters, you can choose to vote for the lesser evil for whatever harm reduction that offers, and yes, they will still do the bad things, so that sucks, or you can choose to let the greater evil win and they will do more of the bad things. Or you can vote third party (or not at all), and, this is absolutely key: Yeah, but I think his point is that the people arguing that non-voters (or third party voters or whatever) should vote for the lesser evil aren't accomplishing anything. IF those people really wanted to make Democrats win, they'd focus on changing the Democrats, because a significant percent of people disengaging from the party isn't going to just magically change unless the party itself changes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah, but I think his point is that the people arguing that non-voters (or third party voters or whatever) should vote for the lesser evil aren't accomplishing anything. IF those people really wanted to make Democrats win, they'd focus on changing the Democrats, because a significant percent of people disengaging from the party isn't going to just magically change unless the party itself changes. Yeah, I get that. But what do you do to cause the democrats to change? It would be great if they did, but what pressure can voters exert on them? Voting for the lesser evil won't cause them to change, but neither will voting for a third party or letting Republicans win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Yeah, I get that. But what do you do to cause the democrats to change? It would be great if they did, but what pressure can voters exert on them? Voting for the lesser evil won't cause them to change, but neither will voting for a third party or letting Republicans win. idk about that, we certainly wouldn't be getting Democratic senators signing onto Medicare-For-All if Clinton had won, things seem to be changing already. And the flip side, if Romney had won, Republicans wouldn't be about to deport DREAMers. I'm sure a bunch of Republicans clutched their pearls over their voters not going for the (to them) lesser evil Romney, but the racist chuds who stayed home in 2012 took over the party after the Republican establishment was humiliated again. However even if you're right, and nothing will change the Democrats, that just means the Democrats will continue to lose (with occasional intervals of winning by default and cleaning up some of the Republicans' mess before losing again) because what they are right now isn't inspiring people to vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
"Lesser of two evils" is something you think about for your vote and only your own vote. When you bring it into public, it's not only worse than useless, it's absolutely disastrous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 08:38
|
|
|
Lesser of two evils is something you do from time to time, when the situation warrants it on a case-by-case basis. And it's even something you might try to get other people to do as a strategy, and sometimes that can work. But it's only going to work if it's the exception to the rule. When it becomes the rule then it's time to clean house. And it's become the rule with the Democrats. They literally made a loving campaign slogan about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 10:48
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Yeah, I get that. But what do you do to cause the democrats to change? It would be great if they did, but what pressure can voters exert on them? Voting for the lesser evil won't cause them to change, but neither will voting for a third party or letting Republicans win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 10:55
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You don't change the Democrats you replace them. And yes, that is hard, but you seem to have this attitude that if it's so hard then it might as well be impossible so why even bother? Okay, so once you've replaced them, what keeps the new party from being exactly as bad. Are we relying on the dewy-eyed optimism and true-hearted courage of the replacement party to keep them from falling into the same trap of needed donations to compete in the modern political arena and therefore becoming an efficient machine to reap those donations? I'm saying that the system is so fundamentally broken that without changing the system you can't really get the outcome that people want when they vote third party, which is a better choice than "less bad than the other guy"
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
If the new party or the reformed Dem party starts sucking then they will start losing to fascists just like Dems do now, and no doubt you'll be there to tell us how that's just fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Okay, so once you've replaced them, what keeps the new party from being exactly as bad. There's quite a lot of organizational changes you could make to a party to differentiate it from the structure of the democratic party and make it harder for any rich twat to take over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Okay, so once you've replaced them, what keeps the new party from being exactly as bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:In addition to what others have said, once we've demonstrated an ability to replace horrible people, not being horrible should just be a self-defense strategy for politicians. Maybe you're right the system is so broken we'll never achieve replacement, but in that scenario it seems talking about voting strategies is totally pointless. Pretty much? I mean, the thing is that lesser of two evils voting has the slimmest smallest tiniest sliver of benefit to the voter. It's not satisfying, and it feels bad. But it's literally the only option the system allows. Everything else is an illusion meant to contain the exact outrage you're feeling. Here's another way to put it, do Democrats tack to the right because they love that ideology? Or do they tack to the right because the right has proven that it has a solid reliable voting block that will accept a near infinite amount of abuse to secure key concessions? More to the point, if Democrats demonstrate exactly the same thing what do you think Republicans will do? On the other hand, if the Left proves that it is fractious, idealistic, and difficult to please, what lesson will elected officials take from that? I mean for Christ's sake, Republicans were going to elect a pedophile because he hates gays or whatever. I want to court the Republican vote and I'm not even running for office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
Perhaps they do it for both those reasons? Perhaps therefore, they will never represent our interests and must be crushed as surely as the republicans?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Pretty much? I mean, the thing is that lesser of two evils voting has the slimmest smallest tiniest sliver of benefit to the voter. It's not satisfying, and it feels bad. But it's literally the only option the system allows. Everything else is an illusion meant to contain the exact outrage you're feeling. Well if Republicans are willing to vote for a pedophile with an R by his name then the obvious lesson is don't ever try to court Republicans because no matter how you try to appeal to them a child molester will still be more appealing. Of course if you want to appeal to Republicans and are just looking for an excuse...
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Grimdude posted:People being gullible morons is a huge problem, yes. The problem here is that Trump didn't promise a unicorn and rainbow for every household. He promised very real and possible things (that he had no intention of acting on/didnt care about) that Democrats decided not to support because they are complacent in the system and hold a positive view of its current state. By fullthroatedly (with his fingers crossed) promising things that democrats held steadfast on not supporting he helped demoralize support among Democrats. The lesson here is not "people are gullible gently caress them", it's "support policies people are so desperate to see enacted that they will vote for/not vote because of a blatant conman to get even the vague promise of action on". Shocking as it may seem you might not know what's best for them, and they have zero reason to believe in the limits you set when even your own experts are fragmented on what is and is not possible. It's easy to throw your hands in the air and blame everyone else, but that accomplishes nothing and is true disengagement from political action, not drbating the merits of a lesser-evil mentality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Pretty much? I mean, the thing is that lesser of two evils voting has the slimmest smallest tiniest sliver of benefit to the voter. It's not satisfying, and it feels bad. But it's literally the only option the system allows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Pretty much? I mean, the thing is that lesser of two evils voting has the slimmest smallest tiniest sliver of benefit to the voter. It's not satisfying, and it feels bad. But it's literally the only option the system allows. Everything else is an illusion meant to contain the exact outrage you're feeling. Alternatively, there exists a scope beyond the short-term. I highly recommend everyone take their current view of lesser-evil mentalities and apply it to this exercise: http://ncase.me/trust/ It helps to show how in the long-term blind trust and outright greed are punished in equal measures, the former by the latter and the latter by an illogical sense of justice and spite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
You can show people empirical results like Ultimatum Game experiments until you're blue in the face, ultimately if they get short-term benefits from spiraling wealth inequality and an increasingly oppressive (but not to them) status quo, they will just pretend not to understand and keep insisting the only way forward is corporate-friendly centrism until the poors give up and resign themselves to voting for their own demise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
*mashes defect button until the end of time* "Arrgh why did you stop cooperating, this is all your fault!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:"Lesser of two evils" is something you think about for your vote and only your own vote. When you bring it into public, it's not only worse than useless, it's absolutely disastrous. Exactly. The Democrats have turned what should be a tough personal decision into a method to hold the country hostage because they know a large percentage of people don't want terrible things to happen. It's why garbage like Tim Kaine knows he can vote for wildly irresponsible, unpopular bank deregulation and lie about why since people have to weigh that against Republicans doing even more evil things. Also if the lesser of two evils is the only thing we can ever hope to vote for then a collapse into fascism is the inevitable outcome and we are merely putting it off for some indeterminate time as both parties compete to move to more evil. The Democrats for the last decade thought that time was farther in the future but it looks like people are hyped to get moving in that direction and the situation is a lot more dire. That's the real "nothing matters" and accelerationism. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Mar 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Really? Democrats would have botched NK instead of getting them peacefully brought to the negotiation table for the first time in 10 years. HRC sold Russia nuclear material and was ready to start the march to war with them in 2017. Unemployment is down, the economy is up, black unemployment hit it's lowest ever. Something Democrats said was literally impossible if Trump won. The left is anti-civil rights and pushed fear and threats. If you don't agree you are some kind of 'ist' or 'phobic'. The right is actually defending civil rights and trying to expand them. I got this lovely avatar because I had the gaul to say that murdering a person for peacefully exercising their first amendment rights is wrong. Regardless of the message. Remember that when you go vote. Remember that leftist organizations are using violence to suppress free speech. If you don't care, then that is on you, but this will bite you in the long run. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
Shut the gently caress up you god damned nazi, go post your propaganda on some other poo poo forum. edit: v lmao VS, another av change? You've gotten someone mad enough to spend, what, $30 so far? sirtommygunn fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Mar 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Just based on that post alone I can be 100% sure you got that av for being a loving Nazi
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
Two Feet From Bread posted:Really? Democrats would have botched NK instead of getting them peacefully brought to the negotiation table for the first time in 10 years. I'm sure that's an accurate summation of the situation and also that you're not a piece of poo poo, especially given that you're clutching pearls over dastardly leftists protecting people from nazid
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
I'm curious what that guy is going to tell himself when the economy inevitably crashes at some point before Trump's term ends. When it crashes it won't even be Trump's fault, but given that he's attributing the current inflated market to Trump he'll surely attribute the crash to him as well, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
Well he thinks that Russia, a country which is decommissioning nukes and selling so much uranium on the market that it's crashed the price and put uranium miners out of business, is secretly buying uranium from Hillary Clinton. So I am pretty sure the answer to any "what will the think if X happens in reality" is "continue to live in his own Nazi reality where up is down"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:
I'm a little bummed because I liked that Comrade Sisko one, I'm not even sure if that was supposed to be an insult or a gift.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 01:39
|
|