|
Bip Roberts posted:Uhh yeah, you should vote for who you want to win. If they can't win then why would you vote for them? You do realize wanting someone to win is independent of their chances, right?
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:Throwing your vote away is real. Hillary is a neoliberal with a more hawkish foreign policy than Obama; you are really stretching the definition of "ideologically similar." Edit: Do like this paragraph, though: quote:The Democratic and Republican parties benefit from the spoiler effect created by the existing U.S. plurality voting system, because it deters people from voting for other parties and for independents, in order to avoid "wasting their vote" or causing a spoiler effect. It can also deter 3rd party and independent candidates from running because by doing so they could split the vote thereby causing an election result they do not want. MizPiz fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why do people only ever support Third Parties once every four years and never at any other time. Christ, you might as well write in Santa Claus as your vote. If you're serious about supporting the Green Party or whatever then you need to focus on actually building a real voting base starting at the local level. While I do think you're right, I have a feeling it would make Democrats even more indignant since every other argument they make is premised on them being the only option for leftists.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why would you give a poo poo? You aren't part of the party, so what does it matter? I don't, I was just making a snide comment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Maybe it seems silly to you...but it also lines up with facts. Remember when Perot or Nader caused the main two parties to change positions? No, me neither. The problem is that the Democratic leadership have been actively preventing the type of radical drag the far right pulled off since 1972. The '68 riots, McGovern, and even Carter pushed the party as a whole to a firmly moderate position to try to be more appealing to Republican leaning voters. Bill essentially proved this mentality not only by winning both his elections, but also through his policies. The Democrats have been doing everything they can since then to prove they're the big tent party by being a synthesis of right and left wing politics, including blocking policies that were supported by a majority of the population. You gotta admit that creating an opposition party at least seems like the more effective way to push for left wing policies than trying to be part of a party that takes your support for granted. ImpAtom posted:Greens maybe but Libertarians are totally in favor of poo poo that will cause people to die. Libertarians don't favor policies that will cause people to die, it's just that whoever dies from the policies they favor totally deserved it in the first place. 
MizPiz fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Oct 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's really weird that progressive democrats who complain that leftist third parties aren't relevant enough focus on the failings of one third party instead of actually supporting one that might more closely support their views. They are out there. I especially love when, after complaining about those failings, they claim trying to change the biggest and most entrenched political party in the country is the best way enact radical reforms.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I've investigated most third parties. They boil down to "single-issue voters" or "things I agree with but no capability or plans to execute those things." I'm very wary of those platform changes. After the conventions, pretty much all discussion regarding policy has been curbed since election is now just a manifestation of the concept of humiliation. There really haven't been any assurances that the policies will be followed through, and as more conservatives support Hillary as time goes on, there's less of an onus for her to do so. Obviously, this is all just a prediction, but it's more inline with the trends of other presidencies than the idea that she'll be a progressive crusader. Edit: Should note that the perspective I'm arguing from isn't just as a voter, but someone who's actively involved in politics. MizPiz fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Okay. Purely for the sake of argument, I don't think she would stick to the platform, but she's be in a much better position to negotiate policies.. Assuming she does get elected, it would be such an embarrassment for both the GOP and Dems that they'll automatically be on the defensive when it comes to any legislation, seeking to appeal to the people who voted for Stein by being more align with the Green platform. Any attempt to fight against Stein or the Greens will painted as being virtually counter-revolutionary since it would be a clear case of the elite trying to retake power from the people. This is all purely hypothetical, though, since I don't think nor want Stein to win.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Wait, what? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the public option fail because of Lieberman who was not a Democrat? He became an independent in 2006, but is still considered a blue dog, and you are right that he is largely blamed for it failing, however, at least 12 Democrat senators voted against the public opition with even more support disappearing when the super-majority wasn't needed. blackguy32 posted:Or they would just stonewall her to ensure that essentially nothing gets done since it has happened before. You're forgetting that this is a scenario where a third party candidate actually won the presidential election. This would closest thing to a non-violent revolution America has experienced, and the established parties would have to walk on eggshells if they were to oppose or even block the Green's policies. MizPiz fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Who cares? No one's voting for them, and no one's paying attention to the people who vote for them. This is a two-party system. The "drastic rightward shift" has been happening for the past 50 years. The Tea Party weren't some political phenomenon that sprang from nowhere, they were the updated version of the silent majority that have been the base of the Republican party since Nixon. They're only now fighting against it because it became a threat to them holding power.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It honestly might be fun to vote for her just to help run up the score. IDK, the petulant whining that would come from her not pulling a Nixon would be entertaining.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:If you think a Hillary Clinton win is going to be met by anything but "oh thank loving christ this loving election is over" you're kidding yourself. For the most part, definitely, but there will be those few who'll get indignant about Hillary not winninig by enough.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 03:49
|
|