|
Who will you vote for in 2020? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biden |
|
425 | 18.06% |
| Trump |
|
105 | 4.46% |
| whoever the Green Party runs |
|
307 | 13.05% |
| GOOGLE RON PAUL |
|
151 | 6.42% |
| Bernie Sanders |
|
346 | 14.70% |
| Stalin |
|
246 | 10.45% |
| Satan |
|
300 | 12.75% |
| Nobody |
|
202 | 8.58% |
| Jess Scarane |
|
110 | 4.67% |
| mystery man Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party |
|
61 | 2.59% |
| Dick Nixon |
|
100 | 4.25% |
| Total: | 2089 votes | ||
|
bad boys for life posted:Why are a bunch of people who feel there is no value in voting participating in a general election thread? If only the two main parties can win, then why are you taking this so seriously? I don’t know that there is no value in voting, but the value of anyone’s vote approaches zero. The way I’ve explained my position to the libs in my life is by pointing out that the upcoming election is not a single event but part of a series. Whereas my vote is functionally meaningless, all I can do is try to find a party with a platform that reflects my values and vote for them regardless of whether they can win in the hopes that others do the same and our votes in aggregate provide evidence that good policy gets votes. The immediate result is a “wasted” vote in that it’s likely to be cast for the winner, but because my vote carries so little weight the possibility however small that a party which supports humane policies might get into office eventually means it is a better use of the franchise than voting for one of the major party ghouls. My vote will not fix any problems in the short term, but neither will voting for Biden or Trump. Voting Green is screaming into the void, but there’s a remote possibility that a lot of other people will start screaming too, and in the meantime voting is a relatively low effort exercise that absolutely should no comprise one’s only civic engagement if one actually cares about improving this world. But still, when people exhort me to Vote! as if that’s a solution to anything my inclination is to no longer take their opinions seriously.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The best that can be hoped for from voting in the general election is a modicum of reprieve to slightly ease organizing along effective lines. This is exactly, exactly the problem you can't understand. The fact that you can feel "a modicum of reprieve" in voting for a fascist, racist, rapist--which you didn't deny in your reply--is what's loving wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's not addressed in the text I edited out. That's just bog standard accelerationist claptrap, where misery just inherently leads to leftist liberation somehow. It's not relevant to elections and it's also not based in any actual evidence either. That’s not what I said either, but you’re doing a nice How are u impersonation here. At least you didn’t edit my post this time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:That sounds insane. Can you provide a source? All I can find is that he won't ban it. what do you think not banning means?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
Phone posted:what do you think not banning means? They're almost to full consciousness. They've 1) read that he won't ban it 2) realizes it's insane 3) needs to either come to terms with it our figure out a weird way of rationalizing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
Biden’s position on fracing is that we need more new wells and that there is no reason to ban the practice now. This is climate denialism and in my fantasy world the Democratic Party would stand up against climate denialism. In reality looks like we just have two climate denier parties, one that denies all the science and the other that denies only the science that inconveniences their political goals. Both will lead to hundreds of millions of deaths and billions of refugees. (That’s not an exaggeration.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
A great post. A single vote, especially in a presidential election, is totally insignificant even in the swingiest of states, and only holds personal value. Large numbers of votes, in the aggregate, hold significant political value. It is the job of the party, not the individual, to give voters something to vote for, then organize and mobilize those voters. This is why coming in here streaming mad trying to vote shame people is worse than worthless: you should be mad at the party, which has failed to capture these votes, not the individual for voting as their conscience dictates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
The Sean posted:This is exactly, exactly the problem you can't understand. The fact that you can feel "a modicum of reprieve" in voting for a fascist, racist, rapist--which you didn't deny in your reply--is what's loving wrong. The "modicum of reprieve" is not my feelings, it's the actual result of the parties' governance on people I see every day. It's a matter of the people who get strangled when Republicans pull the austerity noose tighter than Democrats do. Politics isn't about feeling good about yourself, it's about keeping people fed and safe and healthy rather than not. Organizing and mutual aid and social work are more important for helping people than voting. But this is the general election thread, and the election poses a choice. I can not vote and have a higher risk of having to live with the hateful dude who's making GBS threads more misery directly into my life and the lives of people I'm working to help, or I can vote for the hateful dude who is making GBS threads slightly less misery into those same lives. It's an unpleasant choice but it's not a difficult one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Loucks posted:I don’t know that there is no value in voting, but the value of anyone’s vote approaches zero. The way I’ve explained my position to the libs in my life is by pointing out that the upcoming election is not a single event but part of a series. Yes, exactly. This is simple game theory. If dems don't put out a leftist candidate and we vote for them anyways that's a reinforcement that they can just put republicans on the ballot and we "have to vote for them."
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
Disnesquick posted:I've seen this kind of argument a lot recently, and I think it's an incredibly dangerous line of thinking: The idea that there is some kind of far-off hard line is exactly how Konzentrationslagers graduate to fully-fledged Vernichtungslagers because that hard-line has a tendency to drift further and further away as the latest escalation of atrocity gets normalized. This is precisely the phenomenon that Martin Niemoller attempted to lay down in warning for future generations with his famous poem. No, the dangerous thinking is calling things genocide that are not. To attempt to put this on the same level as the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, or the Armenian genocide is insulting. Genocide is an attempt to destroy a people. Again: what is happening to undocumented immigrants is evil. But it is not an attempt to destroy Mexicans, Guatamalans, etc. You could cite this and the Martin Niemoller poem as an argument that these are the steps towards genocide and have an argument. But in calling this genocide you demean the very people that poem is about. Calling it genocide and saying that the US is gassing people in these camps is supremely hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Phone posted:what do you think not banning means? I think not banning means it won't be banned. Not a pledge that it won't decrease. There are so many real things to discuss, why come up with hyperbolic lies?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:11
|
|
|
Okay, cool. Step up. Cease to Hope posted:The "modicum of reprieve" is not my feelings, it's the actual result of the parties' governance on people I see every day. "modicum of reprieve" is a loving sad rear end goal. Cease to Hope posted:It's a matter of the people who get strangled when Republicans pull the austerity noose tighter than Democrats do. Politics isn't about feeling good about yourself, it's about keeping people fed and safe and healthy rather than not. Bold part is loving embarassing. Cease to Hope posted:Politics isn't about feeling good about yourself, it's about keeping people fed and safe and healthy rather than not. lol what the gently caress does this have to do with Biden? Cease to Hope posted:Organizing and mutual aid and social work are more important for helping people than voting. Then get the gently caress out there and do it. Why the gently caress are you in here, then? Cease to Hope posted:But this is the general election thread, and the election poses a choice. I can not vote and have a higher risk of having to live with the hateful dude who's making GBS threads more misery directly into my life and the lives of people I'm working to help, or I can vote for the hateful dude who is making GBS threads slightly less misery into those same lives. It's an unpleasant choice but it's not a difficult one. 1) Yeah, this is the general election thread, so I don't know why you're trying to shame me, or others, into voting their choice. You bring up that I have a choice but also are trying to command that choice. You don't control my body. You don't control my person. You don't control my vote. 2) You admit you're voting for a terrible person. QED. gently caress off for admittingly voting for a person you consider terrible. There's literally nothing else you need to say. You admitted Biden is a terrible person. You done hosed up. "Vote for the terrible person" is a bad campaign slogan. And someone who tries to convince me to vote for a terrible person as they admit they are a terrible person is a loving rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think not banning means it won't be banned. Not a pledge that it won't decrease. Biden is lying about the climate science. Biden is actively supporting a position that will mean we get more new frac well, and of course more new conventional oil and gas wells. But no, everyone else is lying if you dare say that Biden supports new frac wells. This is how climate denialism in defense of Biden will take over the Democratic Party if Biden wins.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think not banning means it won't be banned. Not a pledge that it won't decrease. alright, let's loop back to your original post: DeadlyMuffin posted:How is a presidential candidate pushing for a net zero emissions meaningless? disregarding that you're unable to quote my post in full and that you left off the part where fracking completely fucks the water table (though setting the water coming out of your tap on fire is kind of a cool party trick) and seismic activity trying to draw the thinnest of thin lines between "banning" and "not decreasing" with regards to climate change hinges on two things: 1. we don't have a time machine 2. we don't know what joe biden's heart really believes i'm sure that this technicality will make all of the difference in the world when it comes to net zero emissions come 2035 or 2050.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Yes, exactly. This is simple game theory. If dems don't put out a leftist candidate and we vote for them anyways that's a reinforcement that they can just put republicans on the ballot and we "have to vote for them." No, that's not simple game theory. Your general election vote has nothing to do with the reasons the Democratic Party puts conservatives on the ballot. Losing general elections has never taught the party a lesson, except possibly the opposite of what you want to happen. To the degree that they are aware you exist as a nonvoter or third-party voter, they will vilify you in propaganda aimed at activating disaffected voters. To stop this, you need to usurp or destroy the Democratic Party (without turning into a one-party Republican state along the way), but your general election vote isn't a tool that will let you do that. It is simple game theory, however: either the Democrats or the Republicans are going to win the 2020 general presidential election. It is a zero-sum game. Any degree to which you hurt the Democrats empowers Republicans equally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Obama's administration also signed the Paris climate accords and committed to reducing emissions, which Trump promptly rolled back. This is a common mistake about the Paris Climate Agreement, because the Obama administration demanded it, the agreement actually wasn't binding. Obama did not commit to reducing emissions only made a statement that it would be nice, it was an empty promise nothing more. Which is why Biden rejoining a decade old empty promise agreement is also meaningless in the face of the scope of climate change. Remember, the conservative scientific consensus is that we must shift our society and economy so fast and so far that there has never been example in history of a society doing something like this before. It is literally unprecedented. That's why Biden's lies about climate change are so damning (to us, as a nation) because we must move so quickly and so soon that Biden's defense of fossil fuels will cause significant harm even if the next president instead stops lying about climate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:No, that's not simple game theory. Hey maybe read up on game theory and get back to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It is simple game theory, however: either the Democrats or the Republicans are going to win the 2020 general presidential election. It is a zero-sum game. Any degree to which you hurt the Democrats empowers Republicans equally. your game theory calculus does not add up. +0 Biden =/= +1 Trump. if voters could cast negative votes as a form of no-confidence and were doing so, you might have a point, but they cannot and are not. neither do votes have some sort of "default state" that entitles a candidate to them, they must be fought for and won.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Phone posted:trying to draw the thinnest of thin lines between "banning" and "not decreasing" with regards to climate change hinges on two things: It isn't a thin line. Words have meanings. You don't get to just make poo poo up and pretend it's true because you feel like you can't trust anything Biden says. I don't care about your Biden headcanon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Also even if Biden is just lying to the people of Pennsylvania by spreading climate change denialism he's still making it worse. If Biden in 2022 says "gotcha" and decides to actually start ending the oil & gas industry that's sure going to piss off a lot of voters he lied to during the campaign. Instead, I fear, that 2020 is model Democrats will use going forward, where climate denialism "makes electoral college sense" so the Democrats stick to lying about climate science because they can't risk losing Pennsylvania and the other states with communities reliant on fossil fuel extraction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:The liberal conviction that the only “participation”, the only meaningful thing you can do politically, is cast an utterly insignificant vote every four years is more depressing to me than anything else ever posted in this thread Exactly. A shelf stocker at home depot who doesn't vote but is trying to unionize their store is doing about 10000% more positive participation in the politics of this county than someone who votes straight ticket dem every 2 years then goes to brunch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It isn't a thin line. Words have meanings. can you quote the entire post or is your quote button broken?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It isn't a thin line. Words have meanings. Biden says he wont stop fracking. Objectively.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It isn't a thin line. Words have meanings. Biden's policy choices will lead to new frac wells. That's what he is promising O&G workers in Pennsylvania.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:No, the dangerous thinking is calling things genocide that are not. To point out the early stages of the path that leads to the above, in order to prevent further travel down that path, is neither disrespectful nor demeaning to anyone. An attempt to downplay the early footsteps on that path, because they haven't yet trodden the later, even darker part of that selfsame path is, in my opinion, vastly more disrespectful as it ignores the lessons that should have been set in stone (and in the case of Niemoller, were literally set in stone) at an immense cost in blood. If your response to people pointing at atrocity and saying "this is absolutely beyond the line" is "Let's tone it down a little, you're disturbing the slumber of the dead", then I'm afraid it is you who have let yourself become supremely hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Biden's policy choices will lead to new frac wells. That's what he is promising O&G workers in Pennsylvania. Counterpoint: have you considered that this does not support their narrative?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
The Sean posted:"modicum of reprieve" is a loving sad rear end goal. Voting is a weak tool. It only gets weak results. In any case, it's not a goal. It's a small measure towards the short-term goal of keeping people safe and well enough to work towards the long-term goal of building a leftist alternative. quote:Then get the gently caress out there and do it. Why the gently caress are you in here, then? It's the general election thread. Why are you whinging about people talking about the election, especially when you could be spending that time organizing? That's a rhetorical question, though. This activister-than-thou crap is never productive. People need hobbies and downtime, and posting is a hobby. quote:2) You admit you're voting for a terrible person. QED. gently caress off for admittingly voting for a person you consider terrible. There's literally nothing else you need to say. You admitted Biden is a terrible person. You done hosed up. "Vote for the terrible person" is a bad campaign slogan. And someone who tries to convince me to vote for a terrible person as they admit they are a terrible person is a loving rear end in a top hat. I'm not campaigning for Biden. I don't even particularly like him. You're so wrapped up in venting your anger at liberals that you forgot the terms of the conversation: you asked me how to suggest how to help people. When you got your answer, you pivoted to this intensely liberal How-can-you-vote-for-the-bad-man?! scolding nonsense. CYBEReris posted:your game theory calculus does not add up. +0 Biden =/= +1 Trump. if voters could cast negative votes as a form of no-confidence and were doing so, you might have a point, but they cannot and are not. neither do votes have some sort of "default state" that entitles a candidate to them, they must be fought for and won. Of course an abstention isn't the same as an affirmation, liberal hyperventilation elsewhere on the internet notwithstanding. But adding an abstain result to a zero-sum game doesn't make it less of a zero-sum game. The point is that you cannot hurt the Democratic Party by not supporting Biden - as The Sean hopes to do - without empowering Trump to the same degree. There are weapons to usurp or replace the DNC without empowering Republicans to an equal degree but the general election vote isn't one of them. Neither side is entitled to your vote. Not voting is neither a vote for Biden nor a vote for Trump; it's just leaving the results of the zero-sum game up to everyone else. If you're voting (abstaining?) your conscience, then okay. If you're abstaining out of some sort of strategy to build leftism, I'm curious what that strategy is. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Sep 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
You're really playing up at this "u mad?" angle and I can't tell if it's projection or you're totally hook line and sinker on the angry leftist stereotype.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I am a weak tool. You are super good at ignoring arguments against you and selectively replying to what you want to, so here is a nice quote from you in the same spirit. Also: lol that youre bashing people for voting their conscience and also saying that voting doesnt matter. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) The Sean fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Sep 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Only if you place zero value on human rights. The PRC is literally operating re-education camps for Muslims. There is no equivalence. I mean aside from the fact that we're operating ethnic concentration camps for undesirable minorities, aside from the fact that we're putting political prisoners in jails where they're gassed in their cells if they complain about the conditions, aside from the cop murder, there's the little matter of our subsidiary right wing death squad business 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
The Sean posted:and also saying that voting doesnt matter. Voting matters, it just has a very limited set of things it can do, especially when limited to the context of a single particular general election. Expressing my intent to vote differently from you isn't "bashing" you, in any case. You demanded I justify myself and I did, despite you calling me a loving rear end in a top hat and a dumbass and a tool. You're not gonna hammer me into compliance with this grade school poo poo, lol Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Sep 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
Disnesquick posted:To point out the early stages of the path that leads to the above, in order to prevent further travel down that path, is neither disrespectful nor demeaning to anyone. An attempt to downplay the early footsteps on that path, because they haven't yet trodden the later, even darker part of that selfsame path is, in my opinion, vastly more disrespectful as it ignores the lessons that should have been set in stone (and in the case of Niemoller, were literally set in stone) at an immense cost in blood. If you were to say "this is the path that leads to genocide" then I would agree with you. But that is not at all what you're saying. What is happening is awful, but it isn't genocide, and to call it that is disrespectful and wrong. The Sean posted:Biden says he wont stop fracking. Objectively. Yep. That's a fact. Phone posted:disregarding that you're unable to quote my post in full and that you left off the part where fracking completely fucks the water table (though setting the water coming out of your tap on fire is kind of a cool party trick) and seismic activity Quoting everyone's entire post makes the thread difficult to read. I quote the part I'm responding to specifically. We agree fracking is bad for the environment. There's no need to quote it because it's irrelevant to the discussion, but here it is, just for you. In the future: you can click on the quoted name and get back to the full original post. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Sep 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
excited to early vote for Joe tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I mean aside from the fact that we're operating ethnic concentration camps for undesirable minorities If you resort to outrageous hyperbole why should anyone take you seriously? What is happening at the border is wrong. It's evil, it's immoral, and it's inhumane to treat migrants and refugees like that. Calling them "ethnic concentration camps for undesirable minorites" is stupid and counterproductive. Call attention to the separated families, the awful conditions, the sterilizations! FFS sterilizations!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:If you resort to outrageous hyperbole why should anyone take you seriously? Do you consider the Japanese Internment Camps to have been concentration camps? If not, why not?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:If you resort to outrageous hyperbole why should anyone take you seriously? weird that the poster who's obsessed with websters dictionary is drawing the line in the sand here
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:If you resort to outrageous hyperbole why should anyone take you seriously? hmm, camps concentrating minorities demonized by bipartisan rhetoric surrounding their "illegality" in small areas surrounded by cages and fences - I feel pretty confident in calling those "ethnic concentration camps for undesirable minorities"
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:If you resort to outrageous hyperbole why should anyone take you seriously? it's an accurate description of them. it's a prison for innocent civilians imprisoned on the basis of their oppressed ethnicity, what even are you disagreeing with here
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:. Like, I get that the state decided not to expand medicaid. Trump isn't bringing back the individual mandate, Biden said he would. Neither one is getting me healthcare in Alabama
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you consider the Japanese Internment Camps to have been concentration camps? If not, why not? Absolutely. Those literally were ethnic concentration camps for undesirable minorites. People were put in them based on who they were, not what they did. Detaining people crossing the border is not establishing ethnic concentration camps for undesirable minorites. To call it that sounds like ICE is rounding up everyone of hispanic descent and sticking them in camps (yes, I know about ICE raids targeting undocumented immigrants, that is not okay, but also not the same thing). Cease to Hope posted:it's an accurate description of them. it's a prison for innocent civilians imprisoned on the basis of their oppressed ethnicity, what even are you disagreeing with here They are not imprisoned on the basis of their ethnicity. They are imprisoned because they crossed the border illegally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2020 19:37
|
|