|
awesmoe posted:sure, except you've admitted in the premise that the other option is worse. The left gets suppressed harder with republicans; banks rob people blinder. the alternative is worse. Youve also presented your "supporting leftist politicians" as an either/or when a it's a both. at every point, you vote for the person who is least far from your views. That way you get the best outcome given your options. but the dems turn left faster if there are less centrists to fight against us tooth and nail. and waiting for centrists to wake the gently caress up isn't really an option anymore. besides, centrists have already shown they are willing to withhold support from candidates that aren't centrist approved enough. that's why they wasted millions on ossoff who showed a worse turnout than a guy who didn't actually exist, and let a bunch of other more promising races go completely unfunded and unsupported. if they can afford to lose races in order to keep us at bay, then they can afford to lose a few more races. Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jul 5, 2017 |
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
These types of dilemas and it's debate, which today seem to be more and more common, are just a way to cover the main issue which is the lack of a true left alternative. Voting for the lesser evil is voting for the bigger evil only a couple of electoral cycles down the line but even more evil and more competent. Such choices are formally void and null and like Saramago would say the best choice would be to probably be to empty vote, stay at home or vote for the lesser evil if you want, but knowing you aren't really chosing anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:but the dems turn left faster if there are less centrists to fight against us tooth and nail. and waiting for centrists to wake the gently caress up isn't really an option anymore. besides, centrists have already shown they are willing to withhold support from candidates that aren't centrist approved enough. that's why they wasted millions on ossoff who showed a worse turnout than a guy who didn't actually exist, and let a bunch of other more promising races go completely unfunded and unsupported. if they can afford to lose races in order to keep us at bay, then they can afford to lose a few more races. you do you, buddy, its your healthcare/penal industry/infrastructure/education system/environment/labour laws/international relations that suffer while you're waiting for the rest of the country to agree with you enough. i mean, look. you pretty clearly think centrists are a greater evil than republicans, so even given your absurdly broken brain, I'm still right: you should vote against them so as to bring about their downfall faster. by voting for the lesser evil, you'll make the centrists turn left faster, yeah? or does it not work like that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Condiv posted:but the dems turn left faster if there are less centrists to fight against us tooth and nail. and waiting for centrists to wake the gently caress up isn't really an option anymore. besides, centrists have already shown they are willing to withhold support from candidates that aren't centrist approved enough. that's why they wasted millions on ossoff who showed a worse turnout than a guy who didn't actually exist, and let a bunch of other more promising races go completely unfunded and unsupported. if they can afford to lose races in order to keep us at bay, then they can afford to lose a few more races. That's politics and when you're on the extreme everyone fights you. That should be obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Fados posted:These types of dilemas and it's debate, which today seem to be more and more common, are just a way to cover the main issue which is the lack of a true left alternative. Voting for the lesser evil is voting for the bigger evil only a couple of electoral cycles down the line but even more evil and more competent. This really just is total nonsense. Ignoring that people don't actually vote based on political polar alignment, if what you were saying is true you'd be seeing actual leftists winning in local and state races outside small pockets like Seattle. Yet it doesn't happen and furthermore there is no evidence that people are craving a leftist surge but only to be held back by the man or whatever. The sc special election candidate did just as well as any other, arguably the best of all of them, and they were a Goldman sachs dude. But it's interesting this has bipartisan agreement - both sides attribute any loss to not being extreme enough! If the left wants to be taken seriously why don't they try winning? It doesnt cost much at all to run in state races - something like that could easily be crowdsourced. But voters on the left tend to be young and for some reason it's impossible to get young people to care about anything but the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:That's politics and when you're on the extreme everyone fights you. That should be obvious. hmm, i don't think i'm extreme at all. just leftist. dunno why centrists think that's extreme, other than leftists don't like kings and nobles.  awesmoe posted:you do you, buddy, its your healthcare/penal industry/infrastructure/education system/environment/labour laws/international relations that suffer while you're waiting for the rest of the country to agree with you enough. why would i vote for evil? i don't want to vote for evil democrats so why would i vote for evil republicans? are you sure you're thinking straight. i don't think centrists are less enough of an evil to justify helping them take power to avoid the republicans, especially since they'll brandish that power against my interests in ways republicans cannot. also, almost all of those things are suffering under dems and i want that to stop, and voting for them isn't and hasn't made that stop. again, why am i voting for centrists? so they can slash the social safety net like macron wants to do and obama tried to do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:also, almost all of those things are suffering under dems and i want that to stop, and voting for them isn't and hasn't made that stop. again, why am i voting for centrists? so they can slash the social safety net like macron wants to do and obama tried to do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
If you even think you've seen evil yet you're wrong, just wait until they can program robots to do anything, what do you think the rich will program them to do and do you think you'll even get to vote?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
During an election the only voting behavior that has any moral virtue is voting for the democratic candidate. Anything else, whether it is abstaining or voting for someone else, is immoral.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
the trump era has taught me the way you get the white poor to vote for you is to promise to kill them so maybe you are onto something op
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:rubbish. I picked those things because those were things that centrist dems have worked to improve that are backsliding under republicans. you vote for centrists because while they will do some things you disagree with and should protest about, they also do stuff that is in your interest and you do agree with. lol, dems sure are working hard to improve the environment. it only took a month of protesting the DAPL for obama to say "hey maybe this is a bad idea" edit: also i'm not interested in kings and aristocracy as a part of government at all, and the dems apparently are with obama's endorsement of monarchist macron. not a good idea to vote for monarchists imo evilweasel posted:the trump era has taught me the way you get the white poor to vote for you is to promise to kill them so maybe you are onto something op too bad the poor are disproportionately made up of minorities  hakimashou posted:If you even think you've seen evil yet you're wrong, just wait until they can program robots to do anything, what do you think the rich will program them to do and do you think you'll even get to vote? why do you think i hate the dems that are happily aiding the rich towards such a future? Condiv fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
personally though i like this thread as it shows brokebrained third party idiots arent actually rebelling against any democratic failings but will even invent failings that might happen in the future as a reason to vote third party today by god trump is trying to help murder tens of thousands of the poor per year this very second but in my imagination the democrats will do that in the future better vote jill stein
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
ofc its levened with "the republicans are trying to destroy the paris agreement literally out of spite which threatens irreversable climate damage but obama was a whole month slow to condemn one single pipeline so really both parties are the same", we cant rely only on imaginations of the future
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:personally though i like this thread as it shows brokebrained third party idiots arent actually rebelling against any democratic failings but will even invent failings that might happen in the future as a reason to vote third party today i didn't advocate voting third party at all in this thread  maybe try reading the thread if you like it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hmm, i don't think i'm extreme at all. just leftist. dunno why centrists think that's extreme, other than leftists don't like kings and nobles. More simply the confusion you have is solved by most people like you by returning to reality (vote d) or detaching completely from reality and becoming a Marxist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:More simply the confusion you have is solved by most people like you by returning to reality (vote d) or detaching completely from reality and becoming a Marxist. well, then i'm a centrist cause i'm saying to vote d only when the dem is worth it! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
you know what, you've convinced me. i will never vote for the democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:you know what, you've convinced me. i will never vote for the democratic party. if they don't appeal to you ideologically, go for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
the way i see it, you've got a lot of dead wood at the top of the democratic party that doesn't know anything at all about winning elections (as evidenced by how much money they keep on blowing in order to lose constantly) or attracting new voters, but they don't want to relinquish power at all even if that means total republican dominance. so it's best not to vote for these failures who can't get behind basic, highly popular concepts like singlepayer or even articulate any way at all to relieve people's burdens in the current healthcare system. they're poison and they need to be purged asap. it helps that a lot of these same dems are scum that suck up to banks and pharma companies, and so are already not worth your vote. instead vote for good dems who show leadership on issues that people need help with. and also join the DSA Condiv fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Who you vote for in the general election is ultimately a pragmatic decision, since one of the two major candidates will win, no matter what, and choosing not to vote (or voting for the worse of the two) is never going to lead to the Democrats (in this case) improving. If you want to improve the Democratic Party, the best ways are to vote in primaries, help promote good causes, and condemn them in discussions. But the vote itself is ultimately a limited choice between two things, and under those circumstances it is always most rationale to choose the lesser evil.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
I mean that's literally why the phrase "Lesser evil" was invented and you're not asking "Should I vote for the evil candidate or the good and just one"
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Who you vote for in the general election is ultimately a pragmatic decision, since one of the two major candidates will win, no matter what, and choosing not to vote (or voting for the worse of the two) is never going to lead to the Democrats (in this case) improving. voting for obama actually lead to the democrats becoming worse, which is why i'm saying the "lesser evil" isn't really lesser. as i said, i think at this point purging the centrists from the party is the fastest and best way of improving the party, and voting for centrists doesn't help with that. if centrists weren't intentionally sabotaging changes people need, i'd think differently on the matter. ditto if centrists weren't so disgustingly anti-labor or wanted to slash the social safety net or pass destructive free-trade treaties Mister Adequate posted:I mean that's literally why the phrase "Lesser evil" was invented and you're not asking "Should I vote for the evil candidate or the good and just one" problem is i don't think there's a lesser evil in this case. voting for lovely centrists helps make sure the left stays weak (cause centrists use their power for that), and help make sure we get even more extreme right-wingers next time. fascists like trump are only possible cause obama was so lovely and let the banks prey upon the poor as shown by macron and his new centrists, loving over the poor by turning a blind eye to abuse by megabanks isn't enough for centrists anymore, they want to more directly screw over the poor. no thanks, if i wanted to vote for republicans, i'd go ahead and do so Condiv fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
like, you guys keep saying i should vote dems if I want to defend stuff like social security, except for the fact that dems try to gut it themselves when they're in power and they only ever defend it properly as an opposition party. the only thing that kept obama from gutting social security was teapartiers wanting something harsher. we can't expect the republicans to shoot themselves in the foot everytime though, and that's why we need an opposition party to the republicans. and centrist dems only act as opposition (if ever) when they're out of power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:like, you guys keep saying i should vote dems if I want to defend stuff like social security, except for the fact that dems try to gut it themselves when they're in power and they only ever defend it properly as an opposition party. the only thing that kept obama from gutting social security was teapartiers wanting something harsher. we can't expect the republicans to shoot themselves in the foot everytime though, and that's why we need an opposition party to the republicans. and centrist dems only act as opposition (if ever) when they're out of power. Yeah, the entire "grand bargain" debacle is always swept under the rug when the issue of incremental change comes up. If it has passed it would have easily swept aside the little work Obama actually got done (and even that most of that was pretty mixed in the long run).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
Hows that third partying going? Got some nibbles?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
I see it now. Jackson, Lincoln, Condiv
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
Despera posted:Hows that third partying going? Got some nibbles? DSA Condiv fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:DSA keep voting for them
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
whats your prob?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
Vote DSA if you think dems kill poor people. not complicated
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
Despera posted:Vote DSA if you think dems kill poor people. not complicated that's the plan. vote dsa endorsed, or ourrevolution endorsed dems, or basically dems that i can stomach, and don't vote otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
If the Dems were actually serious about winning they would adopt single payer tomorrow, since something like ~80% of Americans approve of it. The fact that Nancy Pelosi et.al are digging their heels in over it just goes to show that they don't actually care about improving anyone's lives or even winning as long as they stay in their positions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
god drat condiv you're dumb you were stupidly trying to pretend on this very page you weren't being third party idiot nothing is ever going to convince you to vote democrat because you have the same brokebrain that causes people who need assistance from the government to vote trump but just like trump voters you should be scorned at every turn theres always an excuse idiots can find to be loving idiots and this thread is the avatar of that
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:If the Dems were actually serious about winning they would adopt single payer tomorrow, since something like ~80% of Americans approve of it. wrong, idiot
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:god drat condiv you're dumb how unlike a centrist to proclaim convincing people is impossible the second he encounters resistance ah well, for every one working class vote we lose we'll pick up two suburban republicans you got cocktails with one time
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:god drat condiv you're dumb dsa's not third party. they're entryist. being the smart person you are, you should be able to tell the difference. quote:We are a political and activist organization, not a party; through campus and community-based chapters DSA members use a variety of tactics, from legislative to direct action, to fight for reforms that empower working people. also, i've voted dem in every election i could up until 2016, so obviously i can be convinced to vote democrat Condiv fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
So the dems have changed significantly since the last time you voted for them? It's like my trump guy at work who used to vote d but is convinced that Hilary is something new and special (she's not) and she's the reason he can't vote d anymore rather than the reality which is that he discovered facebook and followed click-bait off the ideological deep end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Well, they found a way to lose to Donald Trump, that's certainly a major one. Hillary was not uniquely awful, but courtesy of running a campaign that managed to lose to Donald Trump she threw the core structural weakness of the modern Democratic party into sharp relief. A total refusal to act on behalf of constituents, in favor of making noises about how awful their opponents are. Carefully sealing themselves into a DC cocktail circuit bubble, where tax cuts for the rich and starting wars of choice become Accepted Wisdom. A party-wide decision to make their appeal to voters their appeal to the donor class: "I will do what the republican does, but in a marginally more sustainable way, and without yelling about gay people." When you have an intensely charismatic politician who understands the rhetorical power of hope, you can sell that bill of goods without bothering to explain "hope for what, exactly." When you do not, well, a thousand seats, all levels of government, etc, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So the dems have changed significantly since the last time you voted for them? they've changed, but i've also become aware that the dems are only paying lipservice to the left at best and really don't want to move leftwards. i voted for the dems in the past cause i thought they wanted to move leftwards and were working towards increasing the appeal of leftist policy to everyone. then hillary took a big steaming dump on singlepayer
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
Condiv posted:they've changed, but i've also become aware that the dems are only paying lipservice to the left at best and really don't want to move leftwards. So you're filled with dumb expectations because single payer was never close. You're like the guy who'se getting fed up with republicans and is vowing to vote libertarian next time because Trump didn't immediately and completely repeal Obamacare and build a wall (even though only an idiot expected those things to actually happen).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:01
|
|