Can we talk about throwing your vote away?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Can we talk about throwing your vote away?

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Motto posted:

I'm open to being corrected as I'm mostly working off secondhand knowledge here, but don't even countries with more represenative systems than FPTP end up with essentially two parties holding major power anyway?

Yeah, you generally end up with a center-left and a center-right (in relative terms) party, and then a few to quite a lot of smaller parties which can join in a coalition. Usually they're only going to support one or the other, though a minor party might also have positioned itself as an alternative centrist party which could make a government with either main parties. Whether they want to depends on who the rest of the coalition partners would be though. Like, here in Denmark we have a party that's economically and socially liberal, which could in terms of economic policy work together with either the liberal center-left or the liberal center-right, but since the latter always ends up needing support from the far right, the social side of things prevent cooperation.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 15:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 07:51

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Noam Chomsky posted:

Could be because Libertarianism is a junk ideology that doesn't even stand up to the most simple of scrutiny, and their candidate is dumber than Trump, and the Green Party has people who believe in auras and crystal healing, and anti-vaxxers in their tent of idiots.

You've got them with the libertarians too, the difference between the two is just whether they don't trust "Big Pharma" or "Big Government" when it comes to the safety of vaccines.

# ¿ Oct 7, 2016 18:07

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Jenner posted:

Just know that I'm gonna be pretty pissed if third party voters help herald in the era of God Emperor Trump and he starts sending all the Muslims to internment camps. I don't wanna have to find a new doctor.

You won't need to find a new doctor, because you'll be sent to the same internment camp.

# ¿ Oct 9, 2016 14:29

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Jenner posted:

Are you sure? Because I am white as gently caress.

Yeah, but Trump is a germaphobe, and you're riddled with Muslim cooties now.

# ¿ Oct 9, 2016 14:53

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

vintagepurple posted:

Liberals vs socialists is what they mean, and I leave you three guesses as to how many americans outside of web forums identify as socialists and related.

A lot more following the Great Recession, and Bernie Sander's primary campaign. Not necessarily exclusively though (as in they identify as both socialists and liberal, so they're probably specifically social-democratic leaning), and it's also more common among the parts of the population that doesn't vote.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2016 05:29

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Rush Limbo posted:

The left dislike Liberalism because historically the push for the rights of the individual, which Liberalism stands for, has historically been used as a cudgel against minorities, particularly in the areas of slavery and eugenics, if not outright genocide.

Read Liberalism: A Counter-History by Domenico Losurdo for a good summary.

The core disagreement between Conservatism, Liberalism and Socialism is the question of who should get the chance to exploit other people. Conservatism says "Only these specific people", Liberalism says everyone, and Socialism says no one.

That said, I'm sure there are people who can name specific beefs with some interpretations of Liberalism, like the Founding Fathers and their love of slavery, in much the same way as people can rightly point out a lot of flaws in the Soviet interpretation of Socialism.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2016 15:16

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Motto posted:

The GOP never went after Bernie aside from vague references to "that socialist running against Clinton". Based on his primary performance, I doubt his campaign would've been able to clown on Trump as effectively, especially on the debate stage where his main strategy is reciting his stump speech and diverting every question back to Wall Street.

Isn't Clinton's campaign partially something she inherited from Obama's? Not all of it of course, considering what she did for her husband she probably deserves a lot of credit too, but assuming Obama had decided to support Bernie in the same way to defend and expand on his own accomplishments then there's at least a chance that he could have had a pretty decent campaign too. Though likely also more centrist on certain points than his primary campaign.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Honestly you start getting to "leftist" the second you get to Social Democrats in the US. "Leftist" covers a wide variety of ideologies here in the US which are sadly underrepresented imo. For all the hee hawing about Bernie being a socialist he wasn't any more left than the Social Democrat parties you ~~see~~ saw in Europe that seemed to enjoy a wide swathe of support.

Fixed that for you. Europe has changed a lot over the last 2-3 decades.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 15:51

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

WampaLord posted:

The original argument was "Hillary Clinton holds leftist positions" which I find to be accurate when you consider the American version of leftism.

Someone else piped up and said "No, leftism to the rest of the world means being anti-capitalism" which I thought was irrelevant given that the thread topic is about American politics.

Should this logic be used in general? So the regime in North Korea is centrist, because it's literally the only game in town. Similarly, Russia is currently ruled by a centrist party, abutted by a far left and a far right party, as well as some other minor parties.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 17:13

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

NewForumSoftware posted:

I can begrudgingly accept having to have a military presence in the middle east but the stuff with Russia actually scares me.

What did Hillary say about Russia that scares you?

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 18:51

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

How do you feel about Ukraine, NewForumSoftware?

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 19:29

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

NewForumSoftware posted:

That it's another example of a regional conflict that wouldn't have happened if we weren't trying to meddle where we didn't belong. Obviously Russia bears the vast majority of the responsibility for what happened, but it's not difficult to see the part NATO played as well.

The role NATO played and continues to play is an excuse for Russian paranoia over the fact that it keeps scaring away its neighbors. Also, the conflict came about because Ukraine was slipping out of the Russian orbit and into the European one, because western Ukrainians decided that emulating the Poles was a better idea than emulating the Russians.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 20:04

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

NewForumSoftware posted:

Again, with Hunter Biden taking a board seat of a major Ukranian gas company, it's hard to believe the US/EU had no sort of agreements with the groups that were pushing the social movements in Ukraine. Again, not saying it's a bad thing in of itself, but it's hard to look at the situation now and say we did anything to help. What exactly did we gain by attempting to enforce the borders of a country where a sizable portion of the population that got annexed was happier to be part of Russia anyways.

Of course there are people who stood to benefit from Ukraine ridding itself of Russian influence, who saw Maidan as a chance to move in. That doesn't mean the opposition to Russian influence wasn't a popular thing. Also, you seem to be happily ignoring the ethnic cleansing the Russians started carrying out the moment they took over Crimea. Also, letting Russia get away with annexing territory because it's inhabited by Russians, like that's the right thing to do, ignores that Russians being all over the place in Eastern Europe is due to a deliberate policy of internal colonization within the Russian Empire (Tsarist and Communist.)

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 20:27

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Bob le Moche posted:

USSR, Tsarist Russia, it's all the same am I right guys? Just bears and vodka and Bond villains, the Evil Empire just like Raegan said. I am a progressive.

Both were Russian supremacist empires. Reagan wasn't wrong in calling them the Evil Empire (though they were less so by that point), but I'm pretty sure he only called them out because they leaned left economically.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 20:47

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

NewForumSoftware posted:

It's sad that "Don't attempt to incite world war 3" is now a deal breaker not worth having.

Standing up to Russia is actually the opposite, as it ensures they won't get the idea that they can actually pull a Ukraine on EU members.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 20:49

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

twodot posted:

I think this thread has a little too much "This policy doesn't lead to the effects you think it does because X" and not enough "Wanting this policy doesn't justify voting third party because Y". Like maybe NewForumSoftware is wrong about this particular thing, and maybe you can convince them they are wrong about this particular thing, but it doesn't really say anything about how people should vote in an election, and there aren't objective answers to this anyways so you probably can't convince them.

I was just trying to figure out where NewForumSoftware stood on the topic of Russia, because that's a pretty good indicator of where he/she would be coming from in regards to their position on Hillary vis-a-vis foreign policy. I mean, a lot of Western left-wing defenders of Putin basically seem to treat him as an anti-establishment figure because he stands up to the US. If that's where you are politically, I can see why you'd never vote for Hillary.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 21:03

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

NewForumSoftware posted:

I don't like Putin in the same way I don't like Assad or Saddam. The sad truth is we've seen now with Iraq what happens when you create a power void in a place with no realistic plans to replace it with something sustainable. We need to focus on methods other than warfare to enact political change around the world, even when it gets really bad and we don't like it. The time for war is when we are attacked by a nation state on our own soil.

For what it's worth, I don't really disagree with the thrust of this. (except for the apparent desire to drop out of NATO.)

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 21:17

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

NewForumSoftware posted:

I don't have a desire to drop out of NATO. What I have is a desire for the US to stop acting unilaterally overseas with military action(which honestly has gotten way better) and for politicians to stop using the kinds of rhetoric that allow for these conflicts to take place in the first place.

Okay, the last sentence of that post made it seem like you did.

Bob le Moche posted:

Not exactly accurate, I'm afraid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiya

Yes, there was a brief period where things improved, which was of course followed by the Holodomor.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Oct 12, 2016

# ¿ Oct 12, 2016 21:36

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Rated PG-34 posted:

Right, Libya is still embroiled in an ongoing civil war. I don't see how this justifies backing any side over any other with the fear of some "power vacuum" if a side falls. If anything, there should be UN mediated peace process.

A UN mediated peace process implies that all sides are ready to talk.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2016 05:16

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

SSNeoman posted:

Can the third party voters in the thread explain this train of thought to me?

1. (Male on female) rape is misogynist.
2. A (male on female) rapist is a misogynist.
3. A misogynist is going to vote for Hillary.
4. There is no correlation between misogyny in voters and whether they vote for Trump or Hillary.

I might be wrong though, as I'm not a third party voter.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2016 15:57

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

vas0line posted:

God drat I hate politics. This election can't end soon enough.

Don't worry, no matter the outcome, this is gonna be the last US election this century.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 05:38

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Mrit posted:

The left loves the 'end of the world' poo poo just as much as the right.

The End of History and the Last Woman
Following a landslide election that sees Hillary Clinton take the White House, and the Republicans lose control of the Senate and the House, the 28th Amendment is proposed and ratified. The new amendment changes the procedure for coming to hold public office from an election to a standardized test, to ensure that only the best minds have a chance of leading the country, according to the rational principles of Smithian-Clintonism. No longer will the US, and the world in general, be threatened by the outbursts of irrationality of the far right and the far left.

Barbe Rouge posted:

It's a bit disgusting seeing you compare Kosovo and Bosnia with Iraq since there was a loving genocide going on at the time.

In '91 there was a genocide going on in Iraq too.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 16:25

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

The US would be a much happier place if it was still run according to the Articles of Confederation.

# ¿ Oct 17, 2016 20:51

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Sethex posted:

So what do you think that will change with Hillary ' s choice for supreme court, assuming the Republican Congress goes along with it.

Do they actually have to go along with it, or is that just tradition? I've seen people mention the possibility of that being taken to the supreme court, where the judges might rule in favor of "Congress doesn't have the constitutional right to gently caress with the supreme court like this", meaning Hillary would be free to choose one without their approval.

# ¿ Oct 21, 2016 07:41

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

WampaLord posted:

What war crimes did Hillary Clinton commit?

Theres a war on for your mind, and neoliberalism is the genocide of the mind.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 16:36

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

WampaLord posted:

Do nouns and verbs work differently in your world?

I don't see the problem with how it is written, as long as you don't read it as "willingly and knowingly" funnels into whatever. They do funnel the outrage, but if a movement is co-opted then it has lost the ability to freely determine where that energy goes. Actually, it doesn't even need to be fully co-opted to be used to push policies which are only tangentially related, as long as someone can somehow sell the connection.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 18:03

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

WampaLord posted:

What in the gently caress are you on about? Your tirades are tinfoil hat as gently caress.

It's not really wrong though, a lot of effort is spend ensuring that certain products signal certain things about themselves, and what they signal about and to the user. Maybe it's overstating the issue, or misidentifying how the process works, but the general point isn't all that tinfoily. Like, focusing on signifiers ("this person did something which strikes a blow against [insert legitimate problem]!") while ignoring the full picture ("and they did it while perpetuating something even worse) is definitely a thing that happens. Not necessarily out of any ill intent, more like a game of telephone where the facts that muddle the message kinda just get left out to focus on the aspect the person cares most about. I suppose celebrating someone like Thatcher just because she was a powerful woman might not have any ill intent either, though I think at that point it's basically willful ignorance at best.

# ¿ Oct 26, 2016 20:52

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Sethex posted:

Hillary voters are literally loving retarded

'hey this guys an idiot and electing him would energize the left'

vs.

'hey I know her husband an her get money from the same governments that support ISIS and they might have been the reason why half a million Iraqi children died in the 90s and that they were cool with heading right back to Iraq to finish the job in 2003, but sexism, racism, biggotry are the most important things to my fragile triggered mind.'

You forgot increasing the prison population by like a million people.

My first thought was that the guy you mentioned was Sanders though, and energizing the left would be another reason not to vote for him. That would at least be ideologically consistent with a large portion of democrats, and actually make sense. A Trump presidency on the other hand is definitely not going to make up for the damage he can do, by "energizing the left", even ignoring foreign policy.

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 08:06

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

SSNeoman posted:

I hate this criticism because I never hear it lobbied against any male presidents. Somehow you fuckers always use this narrative for Hillarya nd Hillary alone despite other candidates making mad bank off speaking fees.

Look just admit it, you are upset you're not well-known enough that you can't skin millions off bankers for talking for a few hours. And you are impotently taking out your frustrations on (imagined) imperfections of the only realistic leftist candidate.

SSNeoman posted:

No, whenever I hear this criticism for like Obama, it's always "the lobbyists are creating so much obstruction that the President has his hands tied!"
Well, okay there are some dumbfucks that say "we are all owned by the corporations, man" but they are few and far between I assume you all are above that (please tell me you are._{if you're not, permit me my delusion so I'm not even more disappointed in thid-party voters})

When it comes to Hillary though, "oh she was paid x amount of money by goldman sachs ergo she's their personal sex slave"

There is a difference

Seems like you're covering your bases here. Either people are being sexist by not accusing male presidents of the same, or they're dumbfucks if they do.

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 10:14

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Who What Now posted:

And now we have a president that will continue to do that and intentionally torture innocent civilians on top of it.

I think the point is, that if the best argument you can muster in defense against criticism of a candidate is that the accuser is just motivated by sexism, then you're going to have a real hard time actually selling that candidate. I mean, that's basically dismissing their concerns entirely, making it clear that you're not actually ideologically aligned. Like, claiming criticism of her connection to Wall Street is some special sexist criticism, when it's like one the first criticism any socialist (from hardcore commie to social democrat) would make against liberals in general is that they're ideologically aligned with capital.

That said, it's not like people haven't been making better arguments, even if in some cases mostly in the "lesser of two evils" sense. Which is fair enough, Hillary could hardly be anything else for a leftist.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 18:01

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Lord Waffle Beard posted:

look at all the people who wasted their votes on hillary when they could have voted 3rd party instead.

That's a good point. If they had just voted for the lesser evil, Trump wouldn't be president.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 20:32

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Main Paineframe posted:

Yes, exactly. Especially when there's only maybe a half-dozen politicians that you don't consider "evil" to some extent. This is the purest possible example of "the perfect is the enemy of the good".

If only Hillary supporters hadn't decided that ideological purity was more important than keeping the orange out of the white house.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2016 21:42

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Indigofreak posted:

If her flaw was wanting power then that is a flaw every politician has, which he sort of concedes? So what's his point? The only sound argument he has is about her policies that change, but then he just boils over into insults.

I think the point is that some politicians want power because it allows them to carry out an agenda, while others just want power for the sake of it. Or in the case of Hillary, because it looks good in the history books. On the other hand, Trump wanted power because then everyone would have to take him seriously; or else.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 06:41

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

The law prevented me from voting despite having as much at stake as a lot of the people who were allowed to vote.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2016 07:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 07:51

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

TheLightPurges posted:

12 year olds shouldn't be voting.

Wow, mean.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2016 17:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Can we talk about throwing your vote away?