|
theCalamity posted:A lot of people use support when talking about voting for someone. It’s pretty common. And yet that's not what voting is in every case.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:37 |
|
|
Mike Pence is finally giving up his Presidential ambitions. There was a photo earlier in the week of him speaking in some small local pharmacy to like 10 older people that was making the rounds. https://twitter.com/ShelbyTalcott/status/1718331479909138543?s=20
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
Trump has the nomination locked up for him every time for the rest of his life. Even he had another term as POTUS and tried to run for a third, I think he could probably get the party behind him based on how they eventually aligned with his efforts to overturn the election. The funny thing is, he wouldn't run for a third term, because he doesn't like being President as much as he likes being ex-President. He just wants 2 terms because he knows that's the marker of a successful President.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Trump has the nomination locked up for him every time for the rest of his life. Even he had another term as POTUS and tried to run for a third, I think he could probably get the party behind him based on how they eventually aligned with his efforts to overturn the election. He wants to be president because it's an obstacle to consequences. He would run for a third term if that were still a risk
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
if trump and other ancient liches all escape their natural appointment with the reaper so that im reliving this in 28 i will go insane well, insaner
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:if trump and other ancient liches all escape their natural appointment with the reaper so that im reliving this in 28 i will go insane I happen to know a magical incantation that is guaranteed to run you off the cliff. President Donald J. Trump Jr.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
not a lich, but all the same, don't you put that evil on me
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Mike Pence is finally giving up his Presidential ambitions. There was a photo earlier in the week of him speaking in some small local pharmacy to like 10 older people that was making the rounds. Appreciate the perfect division of labor that it's always God who tells them to run and reality who tells them to stop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Mike Pence is finally giving up his Presidential ambitions. There was a photo earlier in the week of him speaking in some small local pharmacy to like 10 older people that was making the rounds. To be fair to him, he is at least 15 years too young for the job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
They never say which god, but it always seems to be one of the rear end in a top hat trickster types
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
haveblue posted:They never say which god, but it always seems to be one of the rear end in a top hat trickster types Loki being in charge of politics would explain a lot, tbf
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
according to some myths, i guess pence could be loki
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
Xalidur posted:It's abortion rights. I have a daughter. After she was born, I took a job in New York and moved the family up here, after living in the South for most of my life. As long as one party is pro-choice and the other is virulently otherwise, I'm voting straight ticket for the blue team. I'm trans and I have lived my life in Texas and I am ready to get out of this failed state of a state because it's been a waiting game for when my existence and/or healthcare is going to get criminalized here. While I'm getting tired of the "we see you" performative actions of the Biden administration, I know where poo poo stands if the Republicans get in the White House again and I'd rather not have any anti-trans poo poo go nationwide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The funny thing is, he wouldn't run for a third term, because he doesn't like being President as much as he likes being ex-President. He just wants 2 terms because he knows that's the marker of a successful President.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:as an alabamaian, not much however i deciede. if it was in a battleground state, i would like to believe i would stand the same in that hypothetical. not give my support to people/parties that don't meet my minimum standards while proclaiming to anyone listening what those reasons are and press them on the same "My vote doesn't matter" is exactly what the Republican party is counting on in order to continue making life even worse for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:as an alabamaian, not much however i deciede. if it was in a battleground state, i would like to believe i would stand the same in that hypothetical. not give my support to people/parties that don't meet my minimum standards while proclaiming to anyone listening what those reasons are and press them on the same I know you're talking about national races but Alabama is actually a good example of how much voting matters because Doug Jones was able to defeat Roy Moore by a very slim margin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
Shadowlyger posted:"My vote doesn't matter" is exactly what the Republican party is counting on in order to continue making life even worse for everyone. i vote local when i see someone i can support and for bills and amendments. never had i said "voting" is a completely pointless thing, ive been arguing that you dont have to vote for one of the two main parties if none meet your standards Angry_Ed posted:I know you're talking about national races but Alabama is actually a good example of how much voting matters because Doug Jones was able to defeat Roy Moore by a very slim margin. World Famous W fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 22:41
|
|
|
doug jones won because of very specific and unique events that are not easy or desirable to replicate
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
Shadowlyger posted:"My vote doesn't matter" is exactly what the Republican party is counting on in order to continue making life even worse for everyone. If that's the case then it's on the dems in charge to behave in a manner that makes voting for them palatable to people such as me who draw a hard line on niche issues such as "supports genocide"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
Andorra posted:If that's the case then it's on the dems in charge to behave in a manner that makes voting for them palatable to people such as me who draw a hard line on niche issues such as "supports genocide" Yeah that'll show em. Answer me this, if voting doesn't matter then why has the GOP put so much time effort and money into trying to prevent people from doing it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Voting for a candidate is an explicit endorsement of everything they will do in office, with (yes, I know recalls exist sometimes) the only possible way to rescind that being the next election. Saying otherwise is an inherently silly position, because the obvious good faith reducto is "I voted for X, but not for any of their policies, so i have no responsibility should any of their policies be put into place." If you want to try to figure out what percent of policies, adjusted by the differences in those policies between the two front-running candidates in a first-past-the-post electoral system actually matters, go ahead, but the only result will be playing Cape Fear with your nominal allies. This refers to the plot of the movie Cape Fear, where a convict goes after his defense for not doing enough, father than the prosecution, who is actively responsible for their situation. Tnega fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I'm trans and I have lived my life in Texas and I am ready to get out of this failed state of a state because it's been a waiting game for when my existence and/or healthcare is going to get criminalized here. While I'm getting tired of the "we see you" performative actions of the Biden administration, I know where poo poo stands if the Republicans get in the White House again and I'd rather not have any anti-trans poo poo go nationwide. Come on up here to the other end of I-35!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
Tnega posted:Voting for a candidate is an explicit endorsement of everything they will do in office, with (yes, I know recalls exist sometimes) the only possible way to rescind that being the next election. It's not an explicit endorsement of everything they will do. Maybe it's an implicit endorsement, but all the voter explicitly says/signs is that they want their vote to go to that candidate. And I'd disagree it's even an implicit endorsement, because implication is based on shared understanding and most people understand that voting is a strategic decision to empower one candidate over another, not " explicit endorsement of everything they will do in office" Tnega posted:Saying otherwise is an inherently silly position, because the obvious good faith reducto is "I voted for X, but not for any of their policies, so i have no responsibility should any of their policies be put into place." [/spoiler] We're all responsible for the impact of our decision to vote/not vote (unless the race is decided by 1 vote, the impact is nil). But I don't find it silly to say "this was the trolley problem in front of me, I chose the option I disliked the least, I don't endorse everything they'll do but I made the right decision to vote for them." Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:It's not an explicit endorsement of everything they will do. Maybe it's an implicit endorsement, but all the voter explicitly says/signs is that they want their vote to go to that candidate. Civilized Fishbot posted:We're all responsible for the impact of our decision to vote/not vote (unless the race is decided by 1 vote, the impact is nil). But I don't find it silly to say "this was the trolley problem in front of me, I chose the option I disliked the least, I don't endorse everything they'll do but I made the right decision to vote for them." I disagree, I would use the following example: I live in a location, that location can get the occasional tornado, I have seen a tornado with my own eyes, so I know it is possible. If I choose to live here I am accepting the risk that a tornado will damage my life and property. While I do not want a tornado to damage my life or property, the fact that I face that risk openly by continuing to live here means I endorse being hit by a tornado. (Mostly because tornadoes are common across the nation, and are therefore effectively unavoidable.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
Until I have the option to create a "-1 vote" for a candidate, voting is absolutely not an endorsement for one candidate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
The idea that voting for a candidate means you endorse every single action they then take going forward is absurd. That's the kind of thinking that turns you into a cult for your candidate and turns every action they take somehow into a good one you agree with. Disagreeing with the elected officials, even the ones we elected, is an expected part of the system. You vote for who is going to best represent you, and its fair to have lines where that stops, it's just silly to act like that's not also what other people are doing and that they agree with everything that elected official does. kdrudy fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Until I have the option to create a "-1 vote" for a candidate, voting is absolutely not an endorsement for one candidate. kdrudy posted:The idea that voting for a candidate means you endorse every single action they then take going forward is absurd. That's the kind of thinking that turns you into a cult for your candidate and turns every action they take somehow into a good one you agree with. Disagreeing with the elected officials, even the ones we elected, is an expected part of the system. So, what you two are saying is, I can vote for a candidate, and because I do not support any of their policies, i have no responsibility toward those policies being implemented?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Until I have the option to create a "-1 vote" for a candidate, voting is absolutely not an endorsement for one candidate. Honestly, having a Negative Vote option would be a really good reform. Maybe even better than ranked choice. Everybody on the ballot is pro-Trump, even the Dem? Slap a negative vote on the GOP guy and you've still Defeated Fascism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
Tnega posted:So, what you two are saying is, I can vote for a candidate, and because I do not support any of their policies, i have no responsibility toward those policies being implemented? What responsibility am I taking?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
Tnega posted:Voting for a candidate is an explicit endorsement of everything they will do in office, with (yes, I know recalls exist sometimes) Heh. Yikes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
Tnega posted:Voting for a candidate is an explicit endorsement of everything they will do in office, with (yes, I know recalls exist sometimes) the only possible way to rescind that being the next election. Saying otherwise is an inherently silly position, because the obvious good faith reducto is "I voted for X, but not for any of their policies, so i have no responsibility should any of their policies be put into place." Isn't the obvious good faith reducto of "voting for a candidate is an explicit endorsement of everything they do in office" just "you voted for X, therefore you supported their decision to switch parties and begin making legislative decisions you claim to find abhorrent"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
Don’t vote for people, vote for outcomes. Given only two viable parties, there are only two outcomes. One will happen, help choose which. It’s not some good vs evil thing, it’s not satisfying, there is no hope for anything ideal, and it’s been tough to accept this. You won’t change the available choices by voting, except maybe, if you’re extremely lucky, you may influence the available choices slightly over a long time horizon. It sucks. I’m still gonna make it known which of the two outcomes I find preferable, but I’m not going to pretend I can conjure a third possible outcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
Many interesting conversations. I think this is really at the heart of it:Gumball Gumption posted:"Do you support x candidate" is the general way to ask if someone is voting for a candidate. It's not weird to call voting for someone support. Of the definitions of “support” I would say that voting for somebody does include these kinds of support: - give material assistance to - be actively interested in and concerned for the success of. - endure; tolerate. But others seem to think it also includes these kinds of support: - give approval, comfort, or encouragement to. - bear all or part of the weight of; hold up. - suggest the truth of; corroborate. And then there’s one, “enable to function or act,” and how you fall on that one depends on what definition of “enable” you’re using, so it starts to get fuzzy there. But I feel like those who are considering the broader set of definitions to be implicit in voting are not thinking in a way that is consistent with the majority of the population, or the way voting has generally been thought of historically, or in a way that even practical given how many possible viewpoints there are among 300,000,000 people. Almost nobody gets to vote for exactly who they want and most of them are voting for themselves. It seems like there is some conception of voting as some kind of a parasocial relationship, but as others have said, it is not difficult, and nobody knows if you did it, and you don’t have to think about or care about it any longer than it takes to do. It is the tiniest nudge, and most people do not consider it to be a reflection on their personality, or a declaration that the person they are voting for is a good person, or somebody they like, or whether they agree with their views. They consider it what it is - a drop in a bucket, and buckets are filled by drops. The Top G posted:How does this theory account for the illegal status of cannabis in the face of longstanding bipartisan majority support? ME MA CT NY NJ MD VA IL MO MN NM AZ CO CA NV OR WA MT MI 17 of those 19 states voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 election, and a majority of them have had Democrat-dominated governments for years or decades. Public sentiment on marijuana is so well known that the government, even under the right wing party, does not exercise what is legally its right, which is for federal agencies to raid and shut down every dispensary in the entire country and put the people running them in prison for eleventy billion years. If people were pissed about weed being legal, and blaming crime on it, Republicans would 100% be arguing for a crackdown and it would be pretty scary. Public sentiment arguably matters even more than donor cash because, after all, you’re only using that cash to influence how voters feel, and sometimes you can’t convince them. Skex posted:Biden's stance and actions as little as they may be is different and frankly a huge shift from what has come before. There is way to much institutional inertia in US foreign policy for any President to make the kind of shift you are suggesting should be the litmus test. It's just not going to happen and if he tried we'd be watching impeachment proceedings before the week was out. And of course we all know that Biden has played a role in maintaining that 100% support for decades. But there is a clear shift - and that’s because because it’s clearly what a significant chunk of Democratic voters want. And to go back even farther in the discussion than I already am, it’s like Main Paineframe said - those voters want that because people passionately explained what was really happening in Israel to people who had been fed a cartoon cutout version and advocated for justice. Changing minds is where everything starts. FLIPADELPHIA posted:None because my single vote doesn't ever change an outcome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Honestly, having a Negative Vote option would be a really good reform. Maybe even better than ranked choice. oh there's actually a term for that: Combined Approval Voting
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Digamma-F-Wau posted:oh there's actually a term for that: Combined Approval Voting
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
Tnega posted:When you vote for a person in a representative democracy, you are saying that you want that person to have all the powers and responsibilities granted by that office. That is what voting is. What are you talking about. Voting isn't "saying," it's "doing." It's allocating your vote to a certain candidate in a mathematical process. You're responsible for the outcome of your decision, but it doesn't imply that you believe anything in particular about the candidate who got your vote, except that you prefer the outcome where they get your vote to the outcome where any other candidate gets your vote. Extrapolating from that preference that the voter endorses everything the candidate does, that's ridiculous. We know that all the time in every sort of election, voters experience voting as a lesser-evil decision. If you had to fully endorse the candidate to vote for them, our elections would be very different - far fewer people would vote. quote:I disagree, I would use the following example: I live in a location, that location can get the occasional tornado, I have seen a tornado with my own eyes, so I know it is possible. If I choose to live here I am accepting the risk that a tornado will damage my life and property. While I do not want a tornado to damage my life or property, the fact that I face that risk openly by continuing to live here means I endorse being hit by a tornado. (Mostly because tornadoes are common across the nation, and are therefore effectively unavoidable.) I disagree with the example. You're not endorsing your own misfortune just because you take a calculated risk. People who make decisions that result in one kind of danger increasing for them are not endorsing that danger. People who move to Gaza are not endorsing all the Israeli assaults on Gaza, people who move to economically deprived areas are not endorsing their own starvation in food deserts. People who try to make it into the US without documents are not endorsing the separation of their families. To totally decontextualize their choice from the context of what other choices were available, and say they fully endorse whatever danger or indignity they decided was least menacing, it's just silly. And although the voting decision isn't nearly as dramatic or personally impactful as these examples, the logic holds that we shouldn't decontextualize choices to call them endorsements. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Oct 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
Toaster Beef posted:Isn't the obvious good faith reducto of "voting for a candidate is an explicit endorsement of everything they do in office" just "you voted for X, therefore you supported their decision to switch parties and begin making legislative decisions you claim to find abhorrent" And I agree with the position put forth by that reducto argument. An elected representative "going a little funny" is a risk, if you are unwilling to say "yes, it is my fault" that someone you voted for was in a position of power (and able to change parties while in that position, for instance), your only hope of keeping your hands clean is staying out of it, which also doesn't work, because you could have chosen not to pay taxes and accept the punishment for doing so. Tnega fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Oct 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
Voting is just choosing which of the two candidates you would prefer hold that office. It takes maybe half an hour (to decide how to vote and mark the ballot) if there are a lot of confusing ballot initiatives. It's important because some of those offices govern 330 million people, but it isn't some kind of definitive moral judgment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
Tnega posted:And I agree with the position put forth by that reducto argument. An elected representative "going a little funny" is a risk, if you are unwilling to say "yes, it is my fault" that someone you voted for was in a position of power (and able to change parties while in that position, for instance), your only hope of keeping your hands clean is staying out of it, which also doesn't work, because you could have chosen not to pay taxes and accept the punishment for doing so. Nahh, the system's responsible for the poo poo candidates I have to pick from. At best there's some responsibility for things that a theoretical republican executive wouldn't do, but that's a short list of things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:37 |
|
|
If you can't be held accountable for voting for someone, then Trump voters can't be held accountable for voting for Trump. They simply made the insignificant moral calculus of choosing who they perceived to be the lesser evil, probably didn't think he'd actually follow through on anything; he didn't even build the wall! I don't think many in this thread would agree with that. I certainly don't, which is why I cannot fathom voting for Joe Biden, overseer of the 2023 Gazan genocide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2023 02:59
|
|
