|
Neurolimal posted:Let me simplify the point: if someone shot your family in front of you, and talked about how good it felt shooting your family, would you go on to endorse them (in...basically anything)? Even if the other guy was talking about how much he loves shooting families? Somehow the same people seem to find that same breaking point every single election. The key issues change, the candidates change, the opposition candidates change, but the result is always the same - they always have a reason not to vote. It's almost as though some of them subconsciously decided that they are too pure to ever vote for a shitlib, and don't care if that means American women lose their reproductive rights, or education and social services get slashed, or gays become second class citizens. None of that is important enough, because the most important thing is to accuse everyone else of being sellouts. I'm genuinely not speaking of any poster in particular. But I've seen this act play out with every election since 2016.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
predicto posted:Somehow the same people seem to find that same breaking point every single election. The key issues change, the candidates change, the opposition candidates change, but the result is always the same - they always have a reason not to vote. There are Democrats that are anti-choice, transphobes, and are alright with education and social services being cut. The Dems have had chances to pass abortion rights for decades but failed to do so. Last year, they had control of the White House, the House, and the senate, and they failed to pass a law codifying Roe. The GOP has been making it harder to vote in their states and, nationally, the Dems failed to pass a voting rights law that could alleviate that pressure. It’s hard to convince people to vote for the Democrats when the Democrats failed to make it easier to get them elected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
This conversation is stupid. It is objectively true that voting for Democrats results in net less bad outcomes and net more good outcomes. When's the last time a Democrat started a war, or the last time a Democrat took healthcare away? You all make choices between imperfect solutions all the time in your everyday lives, but when it comes to politics and elections, that's different? Politics is a part of life, complete with all the poo poo choices that life entails. You think you can absolve yourselves of what's happening in the world because you claim that you aren't making a choice (you most certainly are)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:There are Democrats that are anti-choice, transphobes, and are alright with education and social services being cut. The Dems have had chances to pass abortion rights for decades but failed to do so. Last year, they had control of the White House, the House, and the senate, and they failed to pass a law codifying Roe. How does not voting and the GOP winning more elections improve things in any meaningful way? One side is very clearly better than the other, despite their flaws. If more Democrats were elected and we didn't have to rely on the votes of people like Manchin and Sinema they might actually one day pass those types of laws. They're definitely not going to happen if people decide to stop voting because their perfect candidate isn't running. Not voting makes zero sense. The fact is the Democrats are more likely to pass those laws in the future than the pipe dream of some leftist revolution possibly happening in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
small butter posted:When's the last time a Democrat started a war Seems people are forgetting this documentary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=steA_PZPkc8 Also: Clinton lied, Milosevic died.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:23
|
|
|
Mustang posted:How does not voting and the GOP winning more elections improve things in any meaningful way? One side is very clearly better than the other, despite their flaws. I didn’t mention anything about a leftist revolution. It’s hard to convince people to vote for more democrats after they’ve shown that when they’re in control, they won’t do much. No one is waiting for a “perfect” candidate. I simply have a different standard for who I’d vote for compared to you. If you want to call it perfect, go ahead. I just call it the bare minimum. Right now, we have a president who is fully behind the genocide of Palestinians right now and I don’t want to vote for someone like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
predicto posted:Somehow the same people seem to find that same breaking point every single election. The key issues change, the candidates change, the opposition candidates change, but the result is always the same - they always have a reason not to vote. https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1715780033753616517 Some choice quotes: quote:“Joe Biden has single-handedly alienated almost every Arab-American and Muslim American voter in Michigan,” said state Rep. quote:...said a former Biden aide. “I’ve also been getting calls from ppl saying, ‘I have blood on my hands because I got ppl out to support him.'" quote:Osama Siblan, the Publisher of Arab American News: “I will never vote Biden again, if he stands on his head... We will not meet with anyone who represents the Biden or Kamala Harris campaign because they lied to us." ... small butter posted:This conversation is stupid. It is objectively true that voting for Democrats results in net less bad outcomes and net more good outcomes. When's the last time a Democrat started a war  
Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:43
|
|
|
one thing that sucks is that because of incumbent inertia there isn't going to be a proper primary, with the only bad faith cranks that are gonna go nowhere making bids
Digamma-F-Wau fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:48
|
|
|
Digamma-F-Wau posted:one thing that sucks is that I doubt there's anyone in the chain of succession that's pro-palestine Perhaps quietly, but it is difficult to think of a less politically relevant group in the USA than voters who care a lot about Palestine. Meanwhile, there are a significant number of voters who otherwise may vote for Democrats who likely wouldn't if the Democratic party started opposing Israel right now. You can make the ethical and moral argument, but you can't really make an electoral argument for opposing Israel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:55
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Let me simplify the point: if someone shot your family in front of you, and talked about how good it felt shooting your family, would you go on to endorse them (in...basically anything)? Even if the other guy was talking about how much he loves shooting families? I'm not intimately familiar with the political stances and priorities of the Arab-American community, but I suspect that no matter how much they hate Biden supporting Israel like every other American president in the last fifty years, they're still going to have much bigger issues with the white supremacist candidate who has a record of openly discriminating against Muslims. Hell, Obama remained broadly popular with Arab-Americans even after fully backing Israel in the 2014 Gaza invasion, which followed pretty much the same playbook as the current events and was the bloodiest Israeli attack on Gaza before now. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 02:03
|
|
|
it would def send a message if Biden lost Minnesota, regardless of if he still wins enough other states to win. Despite all what I said earlier I'd def go "yeah that's fair"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
Enjoy hell moron https://twitter.com/GlennBostonTV/status/1718070990486282649?t=q3emfwsvLxXBgo8gPUuoOg&s=19 E: better coverage: https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/lewiston-maine-mass-shootings-10-27-23/index.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 02:44
|
|
|
Serious question that I've asked tons of people and never gotten a straight answer to: Why is not voting always equated with voting for Republicans? Why isn't it the other way around or neutral? Are you also saying that if I was hypothetically a registered Republican and chose not to vote, that I'm by default voting for Democrats? This has never made any sense to me and it always just feels like some kind of guilting/shaming
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 02:51
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Serious question that I've asked tons of people and never gotten a straight answer to: It does work both ways around. Republican voters who stay home benefit the Democrats. And it feels like shaming because it is! We are shaming you! People who don't vote should be publicly shamed and driven out of your friend group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
The obvious answer is to register as a Republican, and not vote. Easy lifehack to a clean conscience. You also get free interview money when CNN wants to talk to some red converts.Mustang posted:How does not voting and the GOP winning more elections improve things in any meaningful way? One side is very clearly better than the other, despite their flaws. Rigel posted:Perhaps quietly, but it is difficult to think of a less politically relevant group in the USA than voters who care a lot about Palestine. Meanwhile, there are a significant number of voters who otherwise may vote for Democrats who likely wouldn't if the Democratic party started opposing Israel right now. You can make the ethical and moral argument, but you can't really make an electoral argument for opposing Israel. I'm not suggesting that either poster holds both of these views at the same time, however I'd like a poster in this thread who does agree with both of these to answer why Arab Americans should be expected to relinquish was little influence they have, when jeopardizing your vote is apparently how you make the party pay attention to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:01
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Serious question that I've asked tons of people and never gotten a straight answer to: If you would normally vote republican and do not vote for a republican, that's one less vote. If you then vote for a Democrat, that is a second vote they need. In other words, every abstention from voting republican is half a vote for the democrat because edit: i had decided to stop there but forgot to proofread... so, because reasons All of this assumes a competitive race, otherwise it's irrelevant. Bel Shazar fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:01
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Serious question that I've asked tons of people and never gotten a straight answer to: For most people who post here and live in the US, I'm assuming It's literally the lowest effort thing to do to have a say in our democracy. It's not really that big of a sacrifice
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Serious question that I've asked tons of people and never gotten a straight answer to: If it is reasonably certain (which is a big if) that a given voter would vote for Democrats if they bothered to vote, then mathematically choosing to stay home is about the same as choosing to cast a half vote for the GOP. Why? If the GOP somehow convinces a prior Dem voter to switch parties and vote GOP, that is a 2 vote swing. If they instead convince a prior reliable Dem voter to stay home, that is only half as effective, but still better for them than if they continued to vote for the Dems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Are you also saying that if I was hypothetically a registered Republican and chose not to vote, that I'm by default voting for Democrats? Evangelicals for example absolutely hammer this and fervently portray voting for whoever makes it through the primary (even that RINO) as literal religious duty. It's absolutely the biggest single reason why their representation in government is so disproportionate to their numbers. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, friendly courts: all those are secondary because they're only possible thanks to the group that's absofuckinglutely guaranteed to show up every single primary and midterm election to pull the lever for whoever is furthest to the right, turning the big ratchet one more notch. Anyone on the left who ever tells you some variant on how "Democrats lose because they won't play hardball like the right does," but doesn't include that core strategy, is a fool and can be disregarded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:12
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Serious question that I've asked tons of people and never gotten a straight answer to: Choosing not to vote instead of voting for Democrats is half of voting for Republicans, since it lowers the Democratic margin by one vote instead of two. People assume you prefer Democrats because there aren't a lot of Republicans here. Yes, someone who prefers Republicans choosing not to vote is (half of) voting for Democrats. Republicans complain about that too. The never trumpers who did write ins instead of voting for Clinton should also be ashamed of themselves, but at least in that case it's mitigated by not voting for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Serious question that I've asked tons of people and never gotten a straight answer to: It doesn’t make sense and relies on the assumption that a person who doesn’t vote or vote third party would have voted for the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:27
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I think those are good arguments pre-October 7th. I also think the cost of all those good things is being party to genocide and I think the cost was too high. I guess I think this is a situation where it does in fact make sense to toss out the baby with the bathwater? I don't care about any of the good if this is the exchange for those good things. Hell, we don't make these arguments when the right actually does something good because we recognize it as a false exchange. No one gets suckered when Republicans talk social service programs because we know there is a large implied "but it's just for the desirables". I feel like I've been suckered into the deal except the difference is that a lot more people are cool with "the undesirables" being far far away. So, I want to address this. Prior to this post, your stated position was along the lines of "I don't see Biden / the Democrats doing anything useful." This represents a really substantial swerve, from "the Democrats do not do anything" to "I have a specific, reasonably understandable make-or-break issue despite the accomplishment of other concrete things I like". These are extremely different things, and should not be equated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
meatpath posted:Sartre's politics aside, this is a base simplification of these thinkers. There is a discussion to be had about the relationship between Heidegger's involvement with the Nazi party and his writing, but it is not and will never be a settled issue. There is also a discussion to be had about the relationship between Being and Nothingness and Being and Time, and how the French read Heidegger in general, separate from Sartre's apologetics for Stalin and his politics in general. I am generally unsympathetic to the notion that Heidegger's involvement with the Nazi party poisons his philosophy, and frankly the idea that Being and Nothingness is somehow tainted by the Nazis is lunacy. Well it depends on who one is talking to at the moment. After Hungary, after Sartre criticizes the authoritarian communists it becomes a criticism of Sartre and a response to the critique of existentialism in general from certain left authoritarian perspectives. So it matters in so far as to how much one is trying to talk to those folks. So yeah what you are saying is true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:49
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Serious question that I've asked tons of people and never gotten a straight answer to: To add to what other posters have said, we essentially have two choices. It's either the Democrats or the Republicans. Only one side will win the election. Who would you rather be in power? Staying home improves the chances of Republicans and reduces the chances of Democrats. You're not technically voting for a Republican, but you're helping them get power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
Yeah this is iteration 90 or so of this conversation but it boils down to: Push the party the direction you want it to go at the local level, where there is actually a smidge of hope you could make a difference. If enough people do that it’ll push the whole party. Vote for the best (or least bad if that’s how you want to see it) candidate who can win in the actual elections. Not doing that means the person you want to win less is getting a half vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 03:59
|
|
|
This is the essence of a stale argument, but what's more, it's a stale argument that amounts to, "A vote for a person who's helping Israel commit a genocide is not actually a vote for said genocide but instead a moral calculus maneuver that will somehow prevent some bigger evil from coming into power even though I can just choose to abstain from the system or what's more push, however impotently, for an alternative." It's such moral surrender that it should be severely reconsidered unless you wish to say your voice is effectively worthless, your power null, and you only want the feeling of participation versus actual agency. There is no rationale that suddenly justifies voting for someone who has called into question the death total in Gaza. That's genocide denial. Anyone who says, "Well, it may be genocide denial, but at least it's genocide denial from my guy," should not, in my opinion, vote at all. They do nothing but drag down and pollute the civic discourse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:06
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:I didn’t mention anything about a leftist revolution. This is an extremely disingenuous argument based on feels rather fact. The fact is that Democrats accomplished a hell of a lot given that they had the narrowest of margins and 2 traitor sell outs in the Senate. Was it enough, no but you gotta start somewhere. Also as someone who's been following politics for the past 43 years the idea that there hasn't been a massive shift in the Overton window makes me wonder when the last time you walked outside and talked to actual person was? Even regarding Israel and Palestinian the simple fact that Biden has made multiple speeches urging restraint on the part of Israel and reporting indicates that he is still applying pressure to encourage restraint is a loving sea change in the American posture towards Israel. Having lived through a few of these major policy shifts I've learned to watch for precursors. I remember the frustration of America's actual full throated support for Israel in the aughts where the only voices critical of Israel were Pacifica stations and Democracy Now. Yeah MSNBC canceled Mehdi Hassan but they got enough outrage and push back that they put him back on the air. https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/msnbcs-mehdi-hasan-is-back-on-air-and-as-anti-israel-as-ever/ That's the effect of political activism. I promise you that it's new Democrats like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib talking to Biden and giving him a different perspective. Also Omar and Talib's supporters don't vote for them in spite of their views on Palestine, but largely because of them. That's electoralism at work. It's not fast, but it works, but it only works if people engage. Finally if voting didn't matter why do the Fash spend so much time, money and effort to discourage and stop people from doing it? Ultimately it comes down to this, if voting was so ineffective why do Fash spend so much time, money and effort trying to stop people from doing it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:10
|
|
|
Both of our political parties support genocide in Palestine and no one should feel guilt tripped into voting for pro-genocide politicians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:11
|
|
|
small butter posted:To add to what other posters have said, we essentially have two choices. It's either the Democrats or the Republicans. Only one side will win the election. Who would you rather be in power? Staying home improves the chances of Republicans and reduces the chances of Democrats. You're not technically voting for a Republican, but you're helping them get power. More specifically, the time to be a purist about voting is during the primaries. You want as many Bernies and AOCs and Jamie Raskins to win their primaries and as many Sienmas and Henry Cuellars to lose their primaries as humanly possible. When the general election arrives it's different, and when the only real choice is between a squishy corporate Democrat that you don't like and a blood-gargling Christofascist Republican you get out there and vote for the Democrat to keep the fascist out of office. You do it if only to help protect your gay friends and your female friends and your minority friends from bad poo poo that is happening under GOP rule. And when a progressive or leftist is too pure (or lazy) to do that, it's hard for me to respect their rationalizations as to why not casting a vote to defeat a fascist is actually a moral choice. predicto fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:15
|
|
|
Skex posted:Even regarding Israel and Palestinian the simple fact that Biden has made multiple speeches urging restraint on the part of Israel and reporting indicates that he is still applying pressure to encourage restraint is a loving sea change in the American posture towards Israel. Skex posted:Finally if voting didn't matter why do the Fash spend so much time, money and effort to discourage and stop people from doing it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:24
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:There is no rationale that suddenly justifies voting for someone who has called into question the death total in Gaza. That's genocide denial. Anyone who says, "Well, it may be genocide denial, but at least it's genocide denial from my guy," should not, in my opinion, vote at all. They do nothing but drag down and pollute the civic discourse. Of course there is. Abstaining from voting does not absolve you of what happens if the Republicans win. You're making a decision to retreat and ceding power to Republicans and getting far worse outcomes because you disagree on an issue. I'm pretty comfortable voting knowing that only one party will win and helping the one with the much better policies, even if some are questionable, or if some don't go far enough. For all you know, Trump might have even been firing from the carrier stationed there. Personally sending troops. Not urging Israel to wait and cutting off all American humanitarian aid. I mean, he already inflamed tensions by moving the embassy to Jerusalem just a few short years ago. How do you know that that wasn't the final straw that led to the Hamas attack and Israel's devastating response? Truth is, anyone making your arguments makes decisions about imperfect choices every day without getting sanctimonious about them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:29
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Serious question that I've asked tons of people and never gotten a straight answer to: If you don't vote for the major party that's closer to your beliefs, then that increases the chance that the other major party (the one further away from your beliefs) will win. It's always brought up in terms of Democrats here because most goons are politically closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans. No matter how unhappy you are with the Democrats, the US has a two-party system. If the Democrats lose, then the Republicans win. FLIPADELPHIA posted:Both of our political parties support genocide in Palestine and no one should feel guilt tripped into voting for pro-genocide politicians. If the Republicans get a solid trifecta, ethnic cleansing won't just be some distant thing that happens on the other side of the world, it'll be happening right here on American soil. Trump's hardly been subtle about what he thinks of Hispanic immigrants, let alone Muslims. theCalamity posted:I think it’s important. I just don’t vote for the democrats.m, who failed to pass the voting rights act when they came into power. That's pretty silly, since the only way to pass the For The People Act (or any other voting rights enhancement you care to name) is for there to be more Democrats in legislatures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:30
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:It doesn’t make sense and relies on the assumption that a person who doesn’t vote or vote third party would have voted for the Democrats. From a pure pro democracy standpoint I'd rather vote 3rd party than not vote at all. It's a valuable data point to know what people support even if they lose. But from a wanting to stop fascism standpoint I consider them collaborators, because if all it takes for evil to win is for good people to nothing voting 3rd party or not voting are effectively doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's pretty silly, since the only way to pass the For The People Act (or any other voting rights enhancement you care to name) is for there to be more Democrats in legislatures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:35
|
|
|
predicto posted:It's almost as though some of them subconsciously decided that they are too pure to ever vote for a shitlib, and don't care if that means American women lose their reproductive rights, or education and social services get slashed, or gays become second class citizens. this has already happened though?...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:36
|
|
|
"you must vote for the pro genocide candidate with better domestic policies" is not persuasive to me. And if I have to own the actions Republicans do when they win despite not voting for them, you certainly have to own the genocide Joe Biden supports by actively supporting him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:That’s what people and the Democrats said in 2020. Vote for us and we’ll pass the voting rights law. They got into power and failed to do so. But now people must vote for more democrats. How many more Democrats? How many Democrats do we need? starting to seem like a delberate pattern  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:38
|
|
|
Good point to remember that in the days when Democrats did big things to improve the country they had massive majorities in Congress. Over 2/3 in both the 1930s and 1960s peaks. And they needed them since the party had a lot more conservatives in those days who voted against progressive legislation no matter how much the party whips leaned on them. Expecting the same performance from razor thin majorities is simply not a sensible thought, and treating voting more Democrats in as a reward you'll give them after they've won is absurdity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Voting is not a moral action. The problem with the way people think about elections is that they are not only meaningful political actions, but the only meaningful political actions they are allowed. In reality voting means almost nothing and people assign it outsized significance because they can’t conceive of politics as anything other than voting. It’s a silly thing to argue about because it’s so insignificant compared to everything else that you can do to realize a better world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 04:41
|
|
