|
MrWillsauce posted:This is the first time I've been called a dumbass on Something Awful. 
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
I can't necessarily speak for other concerns but what makes me want to push back on people saying they won't vote if it's not Bernie is that it basically admits they only have enthusiasm for big, glorious fights. Pushing American politics leftwards needs to happen at every level, and that means state senators, it means city councillors, it means Governors and Congresspeople. It also means that, even (especially?) if you tell the Democratic establishment to take a hike, there has to be a leftist establishment, a group of people who know how to run and win campaigns, to make all that happen. If you only show up to the polls for a leftist President, that's not lasting change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Nader wouldn't have been as successful if the Democrats had actually addressed the concerns of the left - his success and their loss is entirely the New Democrats fault. Voting for a left wing third party, especially in swing states, is absolutely the right thing to do if you consider yourself a leftist. I will disagree with Bernie when he ends up endorsing Hillary as he has said he would, and would much prefer he ran as a independent, though I understand why he will be doing it. You dodged literally every consequence outlined for both voting for Nader in Florida in 2000 and implicitly allowing a Republican to win this time around. I'll concede ignorance might excuse the Nader period since people had grown complacent and cynical under Clinton and thought "How bad could another Republican be?" but in the year of our lord 7 (years after the Bush Administration) we should know better. Besides, compromise is the name of the game in successful politics and if picking up a point or two of hard-headed Left voters costs them two or three points of "moderate" voters, what's the point? If you consider yourself a leftist the actual right thing to do is organizing locally, getting involved in party politics, campaigning for change within the Democratic party in those long years between elections and then - with whatever you've got to set against the genuine Greater Evil of the Republican party - buckling down when the election rolls around. Otherwise if you think somehow not voting will send the right message rather than convince politicians you don't vote, why not make them lose even harder by voting for the Republican? I'm sure they'll somehow parse that in the way you want and move their politics in that direction, rather than trying to appeal to what people have actually voted for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
I'm also broadly not sure what ideology is supposed to be served by refusing to compromise. Unless that ideology is just "winning."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I'm also broadly not sure what ideology is supposed to be served by refusing to compromise. Unless that ideology is just "winning."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
MrWillsauce posted:I don't think progressives should settle for the Democratic party. If you think that just being mad at the system will in any way advance the cause of some sort of socialist revolution, no, it won't. You need to work from within it, and that means working with one of the two major parties. Sheng-ji Yang posted:Voting for a left wing third party, especially in swing states, is absolutely the right thing to do if you consider yourself a leftist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
As much as my gut reaction to someone calling me a dumbass is to buckle down with my opinion, because gently caress that guy (which I think is maybe why ad hominems aren't a good move in a discussion like this), I will concede that I am a dumbass and have been stubborn about maintaining a pure political ideology to no practical end. Having considered what horrors could come from another Republican presidency, I guess I will vote for Hillary if she's the only option. But I won't enjoy it. Also, I should really pay attention to and participate more in state politics and otherwise walk the walk if I'm going to talk the talk; Chantilly is right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Voting for a left wing third party, especially in swing states, is absolutely the right thing to do if you consider yourself a leftist. I would very much like to hear more about this, because I'm not sure how you would really expect this to help. (I don't mean this sarcastically either, I genuinely believe you have a reason I'm just missing.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
MrWillsauce posted:I guess I will vote for Hillary if she's the only option. But I won't enjoy it. America!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
I like Sanders and his ideas from all I've seen, but even if he's further left than Clinton I see her as being enough more effective and powerful as a president to enact more left-wing policies despite it. And it's not like their platforms are that far apart even if they magically get a compliant Congress. I'm in New York so the primaries will probably be decided when it gets here, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone a vote either way. If you pout and go home when your candidate (either of them) doesn't get the nomination, that's pretty lame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
I thought the Republicans cheating, and then having a majority in the Supreme Court in 2000 got us the Bush presidency. But I guess even that wouldn't have been enough if the liberals had all rallied behind Gore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:No one is asking you to. You just need to tolerate it because you know the alternative is even worse! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:I like Sanders and his ideas from all I've seen, but even if he's further left than Clinton I see her as being enough more effective and powerful as a president to enact more left-wing policies despite it. And it's not like their platforms are that far apart even if they magically get a compliant Congress. I'm in New York so the primaries will probably be decided when it gets here, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone a vote either way. If you pout and go home when your candidate (either of them) doesn't get the nomination, that's pretty lame. The difference between their platforms is simply: :bernget: means what he says.  says what she thinks will get her elected.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Dalael posted:The difference between their platforms is simply: :bernget: means what he says.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Yeah, a no-bullshit candidate as genuine as Bernie is just so refreshing. The fact that he's a real progressive that I agree like 95% with is a bonus, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:there's no alternative besides throwing their vote away. America's electoral system does not support third parties. This is just plain wrong. The most effective way to change one of the two parties is through successful third party movements. The populists, the progressives, the socialist party/labor movement, the dixiecrats, all had their planks adopted (some in a watered down form) by one of the two major parties after they robbed a party of an election. Almost every major ideological shift of the Republicans and Democrats has been caused by a third party revolt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:Keystone XL. Supporting the oil industry undoes all the effects of her climate plan. 33% of electricity being renewable by 2030 is also not nearly enough mobilization to prevent a catastrophic outcome. Yea about that... http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...shes-president/ "If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question," Clinton told Bruce Blodgett, a businessman from Amherst, Mass. Isn't that right out of the GOP playbook? "What I will do will be a mystery, elect me to find out!" She says its in the context of not wanting to steal thunder form Obama, but it sounds like "I'd rather he take the flack off it than I."
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Beforehand posted:I would very much like to hear more about this, because I'm not sure how you would really expect this to help. (I don't mean this sarcastically either, I genuinely believe you have a reason I'm just missing.) I suppose the THINKING goes that if Hillary loses (or it makes the election much closer then it needs to be) then the Democratic establishment will be forced to take leftist concerns more seriously next time around, but seeing as the lesson apparently learned from 2000 is we need to harangue leftists to toe the party line way harder, that result seems... unlikely to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
I really don't want her to be the best option. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:This is just plain wrong. The most effective way to change one of the two parties is through successful third party movements. The populists, the progressives, the socialist party/labor movement, the dixiecrats, all had their planks adopted (some in a watered down form) by one of the two major parties after they robbed a party of an election. Almost every major ideological shift of the Republicans and Democrats has been caused by a third party revolt. Well OK that'd take a while. You're broadly correct but I think Bernie's problem here is that he would like to make sure he is not going to spend the last years of his life known as "The Guy Who Let Jeb Bush Invade Iran". Building a progressive/liberal/leftist third party in America would be a wonderful thing but I'm not sure who all is genuinely interested enough to actually push things forwards. That said, it might be a fourth party, due to the odds of a Trump Party...
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
MrWillsauce posted:I just don't want to vote for the status quo, and I don't think progressives should settle for the Democratic party. If there were more genuine candidates like Bernie, I'd vote for them if he lost, but I really don't see any other options if he drops out. By the way, I don't really like the posts about Hillary being a shapeshifting lying reptilian either, but she's certainly nowhere near as pure as Bernie. I'll grant that the Republicans are way worse, but not being a Republican isn't good enough for me. Hillary is the option if he drops out. "Not being a Republican isn't good enough for me" is meaningless. Either a Republican or a Not Republican will win. Vote for the one you want to win more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Hillary is the option if he drops out. "Not being a Republican isn't good enough for me" is meaningless. Either a Republican or a Not Republican will win. Vote for the one you want to win more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Okay, so go organize a third party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Tenasscity posted:Yea about that... Here is a visual representation of answering questionsIts hilariously funny because it is true. Despite what some people like to claim, she rarely answers questions. Its much like her voting record actually. MrWillsauce posted:I really don't want her to be the best option. She isn't. Bernie Sanders is a much better option, and its starting to show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
MrWillsauce posted:As much as my gut reaction to someone calling me a dumbass is to buckle down with my opinion, because gently caress that guy (which I think is maybe why ad hominems aren't a good move in a discussion like this), I will concede that I am a dumbass and have been stubborn about maintaining a pure political ideology to no practical end. Having considered what horrors could come from another Republican presidency, I guess I will vote for Hillary if she's the only option. But I won't enjoy it. Also, I should really pay attention to and participate more in state politics and otherwise walk the walk if I'm going to talk the talk; Chantilly is right. I probably shouldn't have called you names but this is one of the things where I feel strongly because the other side just makes zero sense to me. I'm glad you changed your mind, and if it's any consolation I won't like voting for Hillary either if it comes to that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Hug it out? e: Dalael posted:She isn't. Bernie Sanders is a much better option, and its starting to show. MrWillsauce fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
MrWillsauce posted:My hope is that Bernie's run inspires people to fight for the progressive issues of his platform. That's not really a third party movement, but Bernie is enough of an outsider that it has the same effect of pushing the Democrats left by proving to them that progressive policy is actually really popular. That said, I'd much prefer if he pushes the Democrats left by actually winning the election. Bernie has inspired a relatively successful left wing third party in Vermont, the Vermont Progressive Party, which currently controls 10% of the state senate, despite not even officially endorsing it/being a member. Applying that model nationally would be the best thing possible for the left, especially if it cost the democrats some elections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Bernie has inspired a relatively successful left wing third party in Vermont, the Vermont Progressive Party, which currently controls 10% of the state senate, despite not even officially endorsing it/being a member. Applying that model nationally would be the best thing possible for the left, especially if it cost the democrats some elections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Bernie has inspired a relatively successful left wing third party in Vermont, the Vermont Progressive Party, which currently controls 10% of the state senate, despite not even officially endorsing it/being a member. Applying that model nationally would be the best thing possible for the left, especially if it cost the democrats some elections. Not when scotus justices are about to die. And Bernie getting enough support will send the exact same message to the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Bernie has inspired a relatively successful left wing third party in Vermont, the Vermont Progressive Party, which currently controls 10% of the state senate, despite not even officially endorsing it/being a member. Applying that model nationally would be the best thing possible for the left, especially if it cost the democrats some elections. Bernie running does that. Bernie costing Dems an election will make every other state Democratic organization rush to lock out third parties. Unless you can actually go Long Knives on the Democratic establishment and move into their offices, you're gonna need to cooperate and compromise with the power structure that already exists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Bernie running does that. Bernie costing Dems an election will make every other state Democratic organization rush to lock out third parties. Lets be fair here, if democrats lose the election, its completely on them and absolutely not Bernie's fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Lets be fair here, if democrats lose the election, its completely on them and absolutely not Bernie's fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:17
|
|
|
You still haven't even tried to engage with the list of very real differences posted before between Any Republican and Any Democrat winning. If you think whether or not we invade Iran is just some trivial detail not worth sullying the purity of your vote over you're insane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Lets be fair here, if democrats lose the election, its completely on them and absolutely not Bernie's fault. The question of actual blame takes second place by a long, long way after the question of perceived blame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What if Bernie compromised on something in the process, though? What kind of compromise are you talking about? Because so far, considering his stance on many issues, he had to 'compromise' on pretty much everything. Edit: Or by compromise, do you mean that he should stand aside and let run with no real opposition? Because if that is your idea of compromise, then I really hope he doesn't.
Dalael fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Bernie has inspired a relatively successful left wing third party in Vermont, the Vermont Progressive Party, which currently controls 10% of the state senate, despite not even officially endorsing it/being a member. Applying that model nationally would be the best thing possible for the left, especially if it cost the democrats some elections. Having a nationwide progressive party polling in double digits would be nice once the Democrats have majorities in Congress comparable to their majorities in the Vermont legislature, thus avoiding the otherwise inevitable third party-induced cataclysm of first past the post systems. Unless there's actually a historical example of the PP in Vermont causing the Dems to lose control of the legislature to the GOP. Edit: Wikipedia posted:Members of the House are elected by single and two-member districts. 58 districts choose one member, and 46 choose two, with the term of service being two years. The Senate includes 30 Senators, elected by 13 multi-member districts. It is the only state legislative body in the United States in which a third-party has had continuous representation and been consecutively elected alongside Democrats and Republicans. I agree, having some kind of proportional representation in the US would be nice. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Dalael posted:What kind of compromise are you talking about? Because so far, considering his stance on many issues, he had to 'compromise' on pretty much everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
I just don't get this converstion. Ideological purity is for comic books (and not even particularly modern ones, rather ones from the 50s and stuff). Even kings and emperors have to compromise sometimes. Leaving aside the election, how would Bernie be a president without it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Then he is corrupt, impure... it's just a matter of degree, not of kind. You could say he'd just be Hillary Lite. That is just retarded nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Dalael posted:That is just retarded nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:33
|
|