Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug
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.
you should also do other stuff that you feel will bring about the outcomes you want (being active during primaries, donating to causes you care about) but the answer to your question is yes.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug

Condiv posted:

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

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.

awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug

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?

awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug

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?
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.

awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug
you know what, you've convinced me. i will never vote for the democratic party.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005

Pillbug
maybe if you dont think the dems are lesser evils, dont start a thread accepting that premise in the title?

  • Locked thread