|
assuming the next dem is macron-like (and why wouldn't I? democrat supreme obama endorsed macron) and wants to dismantle every social program he/she can the second they hit office, should i bother voting for this lesser evil? seems to me like lesser-evilism is just being a loving idiot and supporting evil is there a reason i should vote for the new, extra-racist, extra-elitist dems?
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Yes Why?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Well, you make sure you don't get to a position where the choice is between an awful right wing social liberal & an awful right wing fascist. Obviously if it does happen you have to judge just how lesser that evil is. If it's a Trump vs Clinton type of deal again you probably have hold your nose and mark the Clinton box because accelerationism just isn't something the poor can afford to deal with. Yes, but that sidesteps the question. I can go ahead and get involved with good dems like the DSA, and choose to only vote for good dems. Lesser-evilism demands I vote for dems always, regardless of how terrible they are, and that conflicts with entryism because I'm just giving my enemies more power to lock my ideology out if I vote for the "lesser evil"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Relin posted:we're locked into a two party system How does voting for either of the kill the poor parties helping? Seems more that working from the outside of the dems and voting only for good dems would more quickly change the dems for the better than blindly voting for the "lesser evil"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Then again, if you split the Democratic party vote, the Democratic party leadership would probably look at the GOP and see how they've maintained a plurality/majority of the voters and pick up those characteristics (see triangulation and Blue Dog/Southern democrats). I'm pretty confident they will never learn the lesson you intend by voting third party. They're already doing that with a non-split vote. They've had plenty of time to triangulate to the left and with few exceptions (Ro Khanna) they refuse to triangulate leftward, instead moving rightward to pick up Romney voters Also, I'm not talking about voting third party, more talking voting only good dems and leaving bad dems to their fate. forkboy84 posted:Don't vote for terrible candidates. Terrible candidates who do nothing to win your vote because you've got no alternative don't deserve your vote, it's as simple as that. But you have to find where the line is between terrible and "bad but still noticeably better than the alternative". I can't tell you where that line is for you, but I do think the line probably moves in a Presidential race as opposed to a more local one, just because stopping Republicans from appointing Supreme Court Justices is such a big deal. Clinton was a lovely candidate with lovely beliefs and yet even as a socialist a vote for her was easily justified because of dead Scalia along with a bunch of other aging judges. That line is at loving over the poor to enrich the ultra-rich, and the dems are dancing all over that line right now. Also, the dems practically gave away that SC seat to the republicans
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Not sure how they 'gave away' the seat since the Republicans have controlled the Senate since 2014 and therefore controlled the ability to seat a justice by refusing to vote on a candidate (as the US Constitution doesn't mandate that they have to do anything with a prospective candidate). They hardly fought for it cause they figured they'd get re-elected and then the republicans would just have to give them the SC seat. Just sad as hell. asdf32 posted:So you don't like democracy? Where do you get that idiotic idea?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I know Hillary was a very flawed candidate, but her platform for the 2016 election didn't seem very gently caress the poor to me. Higher minimum wage, paid maternity leave, much cheaper/more subsidized state college, etc. Hillary rarely discussed her platform and she clearly had a public and a private face. Plus, you have to figure in her rightward shift from her campaign to the presidency(like Obama), making her already sparse platform look even worse. Add on top her obvious love of the banks who've been literally robbing the poor with dems doing nothing. Nothing says gently caress the poor like embracing institutions doing just that. Factor in macron, a guy Obama loved enough to interrupt his vacation to endorse is definitely gently caress the poor, and it's hard not to see the current prevailing dem philosophy as anything but gently caress the poor Condiv fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jul 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Yeah, cool, sounds like you know where the line is and have already made your mind up. That's fine. I'm sure as poo poo not going to try & convince anyone to vote for more neoliberalism. It doesn't legitimize them, but it does give them power over the dem party, which they then use to block any shifts leftward. For example: Obama helping install empty suit Tom Perez as DNC chair so that a bernie endorsed choice who was and still is way more qualified doesn't get any power.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Canditades moving towards the center to maximize votes, incrementalism and an opposition trying to do things you don't want is what democracy looks like.  no that's what centrist ideology looks like and it's idiotic as helli'm a leftist. oddly enough that doesn't mean i'm anti-democratic, nor are centrists the party of democracy you loon
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Mate, they do that whether or not you vote. The only way one lone individual will ever have an impact on a democratic system is through an act of terror. How does your vote stop Obama shilling for the lovely empty suit neoliberal? That's what he's going to do, support other neoliberals, can't envisage a scenario where the Democratic establishment don't do what they can to stop a populist taking over the party establishment. it stops him by he might not get elected to a higher position of power, denying him more power over the dem party. I doubt senator obama would have as much sway as president obama does. like I said, it doesn't seem to help the left at all to help centrists have greater power over the party, as they sabotage the left and screw over the poor and helpless to help the rich.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I'm pretty sure Obama became President by virtue of more than 1 vote. Well yeah, but that's just another flaw in the theory of lesser evilism quote:And yeah, liberals will never do anything for the left, that's the nature of that particularly lovely beast. But do you really think accelerationism is the answer? Coz just gifting Republicans the White House until the Dems stop with lovely mediocre candidates is going to be far loving worse for the people you want to in the short to medium term. You might be able to survive it but lots won't so be mindful of that. Unfortunately I do at this point cause I'm certain the dems are doing their damnedest to slice a chunk of centrists and right wingers large enough that they won't have to bother regulating banks or megacorps anymore. It's either eject these smoothbrained morons asap or watch them throw away years and years chasing a center that no longer exists.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:When you think huge swaths of your fellow citizens are evil that's not really democratic. Oh ok. I'll try to think nicer thoughts about the worthless, racist aristocracy in this country
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
stone cold posted:you live in france Don't worry, macron hopes to bring French aristocracy back in a big way. He's also gonna go hog wild on the social safety net, rip away labor protections, and clamp down on muslims! Oh, and he's gonna hang out with trump on Bastille day! Hooray!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
stone cold posted:you live in france https://twitter.com/jrhennessy/status/881989353253163008
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:the answer to your question is 'yes' and the reason is that because otherwise the greater evil wins, and that is by definition the worse outcome. but then the dems use what power they get with my vote to supress the left. plus they're defending banks robbing us blind, and that's not gonna stop as long as we keep voting for them for it. imo seems like a worse outcome to me. supporting politicians who support leftism seems like a better bet
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
asdf32 posted: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). more like i expected the dems not to attack singlepayer as ultimately unattainable. not close is one thing. saying it'll never happen and bernie wants to rip away people's insurance so he can try to pass it is another. and since the democrats are not interested in moving left ever, i'm not interested in voting for the centrist ones that form the establishment. Mister Adequate posted:Well, you're wrong, frankly. Clinton might have been a lovely centrist, but a lovely centrist is a better choice than a dementia-riddled narcissistic pissbaby. If you think Obama's too centrist then sure, maybe voting third party is the way to go - McCain or Romney could end up being bad Presidents, but they're not going to gently caress everything up. Clinton vs. Trump? Clinton could have promised to eat a living baby every single day of her term and she'd still deserve the vote for doing less damage than Trump promised to do; the only reason we've so far avoided complete catastrophe is that the Trump administration's vicious evil is only outweighed by their startling incompetence. "Lesser evil" is fine when it's two flawed candidates; when it's one flawed candidate and one complete loving monster, a racist sexual abuser who campaigns on xenophobia, welcomes support from the Klan, and appoints a millenarian white supremacist to WH Chief Strategist, it's another matter. except that it's just kicking the can down the road. trump is a symptom of the democrats and the republicans both being poo poo, and if we don't improve the party we'll see worse than him. voting for centrists that have literally no clue what to do is not helping things in the least. it's better to vote for leftists only to help leftists seize control of the party
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Despera posted:It's a bit disingenuous to start a thread asking a question you already know the answer to. But i guess you wouldnt get any bites asking "How could i ethically vote under capitalism?" it's no more disingenuous than an article that has a question as a title. dunno why that's ruined your day
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Why stop there, why not do more to help the republicans take power and enact their agenda? if i wanted to vote republican i'd vote republican. not gonna vote for stupid poo poo like this though: https://twitter.com/derekwillis/status/882669894055100416
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:That sign is enough for you to want to help the republicans take power and enact their agenda? i don't wan't the republicans to take power. which is why i want the democrats to stop acting like republicans, which is why i won't vote for dems who act like republicans. you guys are gonna be saying people should vote for zuckerberg in 2020 and i will definitely never vote for that little monster. we need good dems, and we need dems who have direction, not idiot leaders who can only campaign on "we're not republicans!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"well one guy will kill a hundred people and the other will kill ten thousand people, so really both of them are exactly the same and there's no point in me leaving my parents basement to involve myself with the outside world in any way" yeah they're both killers. why should i vote for them?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:Nine thousand people? i think at the point where we're literally voting for murderer politicians we can cut the lesser evil crap and choose not to indulge in that farce.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:If you don't vote for the democrat in a race you're helping the republicans. it's doubtful i'm the reason why trump is president. also, i'm not helping republicans by not voting for democrats. the democrats don't own my vote, and if they want it they can run non-poo poo tier candidates. the dsa and ourrevolution is already doing a good job. if the dems can learn from keith ellison they'll be able to win back my vote
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
newsflash: the dems are gonna run more poo poo tier candidates and lose spectacularly https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3824498&perpage=40&pagenumber=171#post474074031
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
stone cold posted:yes you are nah. under that logic i'm also helping democrats by not voting republican. it's silliness
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
it's amazing though that you guys wail and gnash your teeth so much when i suggest that there might be some democrats not worth voting for. such as zuckerberg, and his obvious upcoming candidacy
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
edit:n/m
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Even if it is kicking the can down the road, it's a lot easier to change course and make improvements with a centrist in power than a near-fascist who is actively eroding the institutions of the country's government and civic functioning. It's not as easy to accept accelerationism when you're getting actively hosed over by it. the left sucked it up too. last i checked, around 95% of bernie supporters voted for clinton. hillary just didn't pull in enough of anyone else. cause she didn't have a platform worth a drat and she was basically running as 8 more years. it was her election to lose and she lost it by her own actions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 01:05
|
|