|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Nah you're also trying to tell us why not voting isn't an option BENGHAZI 2 posted:Like I said, I live in upstate New York, my vote literally does not matter outside of the city of syracuse Actually I said do whatever you want if it's not close but that would require like, reading my posts and poo poo. Though if you're not voting for leftists at local elections lol
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
Sir, this is a strategic voting thread. This discussion does not include weather or not that is a failed strategy from observable reality. I will need to speak to your manager.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
self unaware posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_La_Riva Gonna cup my hands around my.mouth and shout that I live in upstate New York, where your vote doesn't count nationally because you're not in the city
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Actually I said do whatever you want if it's not close but that would require like, reading my posts and poo poo. So what makes you a leftist, seriously, I'm trying to get a read on your actual beliefs
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Gonna cup my hands around my.mouth and shout that I live in upstate New York, where your vote doesn't count nationally because you're not in the city im not familiar with new yorks byzantine political structure but this doesn't sound right to me educate me
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
self unaware posted:*race card* *race card* *race card* "race card" "race-baiting" "ignorant people who don't know any better" "I'm a leftist!"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:So what makes you a leftist, seriously, I'm trying to get a read on your actual beliefs *more socialism *gently caress you
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
self unaware posted:im not familiar with new yorks byzantine political structure but this doesn't sound right to me The city goes blue, and has a population big enough to drag the state blue despite upstate being decidedly less so
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
"but how can you claim to be a socialist when you don't vote for one of socialist parties with zero power in a capitalist system that tries to keep them that way" "Don't try to understand how politics works, just vote for a communist candidate"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Like it's the issue with large urban areas skewing states politically but multiply to take into account the fact that it's new York city
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:The city goes blue, and has a population big enough to drag the state blue despite upstate being decidedly less so that doesn't mean your vote doesn't matter, it just means who you vote for won't win. you might as well use your vote to signal your actual views beyond that do they not have ballot measures to like raise bonds for schools and things? just go vote for those, it's way more important than which corporate stooge gets to sit in the oval office
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:11
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:"but how can you claim to be a socialist when you don't vote for one of socialist parties with zero power in a capitalist system that tries to keep them that way" I mean if you take the descriptive route then yeah if you vote consistently for lovely liberals you're a lovely liberal. You might be a lovely liberal that identifies as socialist though I guess?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean if you take the descriptive route then yeah if you vote consistently for lovely liberals you're a lovely liberal. I can only be a socialist if I correctly post on the internet. Actually that sounds to accurate to be satire.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
I merely illustrate why people might take umbrage with the claim to be a socialist if functionally what you achieve is the democrats.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I merely illustrate why people might take umbrage with the claim to be a socialist if functionally what you achieve is the democrats. I wouldn't consider the democrats an achievement.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
All the less reason to vote for them then?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:All the less reason to vote for them then? You people seem to be confusing lesser evils voting with "OMG I Love this poo poo" voting. To be fair, you also manage to confuse "not great" with "exactly the same as Republicans" so I guess it makes sense. Your just confused. It's not your fault.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
I'm suggesting that if you don't like the result of getting them in, you don't like being associated with them, it's probably not helpful to the process of advancing a left wing viewpoint in any sense (given that even by your strategy it's entirely separate from working to win primaries) and basically, it just seems like a terrible idea all around, one wonders why you think it's very important? Like at that point it looks like ritual self harm.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
Perhaps if all the people who gripe and whine because they hate voting for democrats because democrats are actually right-wing pieces of garbage but still vote for democrats because they’re the lesser evil instead voted for communists, they’d get the leftist policies they want Not voting for communists is the best way to ensure non-leftist policies though
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
I mean in an academic discussion, you can make the argument that in between a fascist party and an economically right, socially moderate party with authoritarian tendencies, you vote for the lesser evil. However, that scenario has the baked in assumption that the lesser evil is both willing and able to oppose the greater one and the Democrats have proven that they are neither. Their resistance consists of them moistening their tea cookies with their tears about how the president is a boorish man whose had carnal relations with a harlot and is under the mind control of a Russian Sorcerer-King. When it comes to actual action, they instantly cave or actively enable their supposed opposition. There is no reason to assume that there will be some theoretical line in the future that will be crossed and the Democrats will refuse to follow. Even if we move heaven and earth to get Democrats back into power in spite of themselves, they've proven that they have little desire beyond looking respectable and keeping the seat warm for the next Republican set of tyrants at best. The unfortunate reality is that you can't unquestioningly vote for Democrats without demanding that they change because you are only ensuring that in the long run the greater evil is going to win.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Perhaps if all the people who gripe and whine because they hate voting for democrats because democrats are actually right-wing pieces of garbage but still vote for democrats because they’re the lesser evil instead voted for communists, they’d get the leftist policies they want Nope. There's simply not enough. Most voters aren't there yet. I'm talking about reality not my hopes and dreams. That doesn't mean I don't WANT to vote for communists, but that's not really viable right now. If you care to tell me how the mechanics work, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong. quote:Not voting for communists is the best way to ensure non-leftist policies though Voting for stuff to get to the point where communists can run would probably be good.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Voting for stuff to get to the point where communists can run would probably be good. Not sure that the democrats are that stuff, though.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Not sure that the democrats are that stuff, though. That's arguable. I'm not sure either. Pretty sure getting Republicans elected isn't.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's arguable. I'm not sure either. I mean, accelerationism is a thing, arguably at least as much a thing as "vote for liberals to get communism". And actively agitating to advance a third party and/or destabilize both parties is also an option. Also I think as much of a sane strategy as voting for democrats. Besides, voting for democrats is getting republicans elected because: Iron Twinkie posted:Even if we move heaven and earth to get Democrats back into power in spite of themselves, they've proven that they have little desire beyond looking respectable and keeping the seat warm for the next Republican set of tyrants at best. The unfortunate reality is that you can't unquestioningly vote for Democrats without demanding that they change because you are only ensuring that in the long run the greater evil is going to win.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Nope. There's simply not enough. Most voters aren't there yet. First of all disabuse yourself of the notion that voting doesn't matter if you can't win. Voting isn't for winning it's for signaling as to what your ideal choice is. "Winning" can only occur when the centrist Democratic establishment has been driven from the party. Hillary getting elected is LOSING not WINNING even if you voted for her. Now this is the part where most dems will start huffing their own farts and talking about how losing less matters or something. The problem is the beautiful American political system, term limits, and the incumbency advantage. Simply put, 8 years of an establishment Democrat is going to be worse than eating 4 years of an establishment GOP rep and having a chance at putting someone good in office. Hillary wouldn't have stopped ICE, she wouldn't have stopped wealth inequality, she wouldn't have stopped climate change, and the policies we see today are largely the same ones we would have seen under a Clinton presidency. It really can't be understated that Clinton and Trump are cut from the same cloth, have the same friends, and ultimately work for the same people. The reason you vote communist is because voting for Democrats literally won't fix anything and at best kicks the can down the road. The Democrats losing elections because more and more people are voting for leftist third parties sends as clear a message as possible. You're right, the Dems might just get more racist and go whole hog on facism. Hell, they probably will. But why sign up to be on that ride? What do you actually get by voting for the lesser of two evils? The clearest way to send our message is to agitate from the outside and to STAND YOUR GROUND when all we've been given over Obama's term were lies and corporatist bullshit on the backs of progressives and the youth coming out in droves. Why vote for a politician not even willing to stand up for what's right? Why normalize corruption? You call yourself a socialist and continue to vote for unabashedly capitalist politicians on the basis that "There's no other choice" it's just loving stupid propaganda passed down to you from the elites much like "if you didn't vote Hillary you voted for Trump" quit passing off this bullshit basically try to understand how we've gotten to where we are and actually use that knowledge to change your actions to improve the outcome. as opposed to continuing down a path that led us to a Trump presidency. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 19:30 on May 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, accelerationism is a thing, arguably at least as much a thing as "vote for liberals to get communism". The dichotomy in the thread has been "vote for killing me quickly or vote for killing me slowly" and the obvious answer is "vote for killing me slowly and work towards not being killed". Accellerationism is "vote for killing me quickly and hope it maybe causes change and also the "me" in question is probably not me it's other vulnerable groups". quote:And actively agitating to advance a third party and/or destabilize both parties is also an option. Also I think as much of a sane strategy as voting for democrats. There are legistlative blocks to getting a third party off the ground in many elections, and other structural blocks. We should absolutely be working to change this. I've never said we shouldn't. What happens in the meantime? quote:Besides, voting for democrats is getting republicans elected because: Some have, some haven't.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The dichotomy in the thread has been "vote for killing me quickly or vote for killing me slowly" and the obvious answer is "vote for killing me slowly and work towards not being killed". The false dichotomy you mean. You can also vote for good people that should win and would make the better place. I don't think you'd get brownie points for telling Hitler to gas the jews slower even though that appears to be the basis for the political self of most American liberals.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
self unaware posted:First of all disabuse yourself of the notion that voting doesn't matter if you can't win. Voting isn't for winning it's for signaling as to what your ideal choice is. "Winning" can only occur when the centrist Democratic establishment has been driven from the party. Hillary getting elected is LOSING not WINNING even if you voted for her. One of two people win the presidency. If you're in a state that's close, you vote for the least worst option. Protest votes actively work against your goal. Outside of close states, whatever, you do you. quote:Now this is the part where most dems will start huffing their own farts and talking about how losing less matters or something. The problem is the beautiful American political system, term limits, and the incumbency advantage. Simply put, 8 years of an establishment Democrat is going to be worse than eating 4 years of an establishment GOP rep and having a chance at putting someone good in office. Speaking of fart-huffing..... quote:Hillary wouldn't have stopped ICE, she wouldn't have stopped wealth inequality, she wouldn't have stopped climate change, and the policies we see today are largely the same ones we would have seen under a Clinton presidency. It really can't be understated that Clinton and Trump are cut from the same cloth, have the same friends, and ultimately work for the same people. Yeah, Clinton would have stacked courts with federalist society 40yos, appointed Gorsuch, appointed Sessions to be the guy overseeing immigration courts, dismantled the State department that she once ran, appointed people to accellerate global warming and the dismantling of any environmental regulations, would have ignored Puerto Rico, would have but Kobach in charge of voting, etc. Uh huh, I am the one huffing my own farts. quote:The reason you vote communist is because voting for Democrats literally won't fix anything and at best kicks the can down the road. The Democrats losing elections because more and more people are voting for leftist third parties sends as clear a message as possible. You're right, the Dems might just get more racist and go whole hog on facism. Hell, they probably will. But why sign up to be on that ride? What do you actually get by voting for the lesser of two evils? Yeah Dems are going to be going full on fascist and this is totally not the justification I am using to prop up my argument. quote:The clearest way to send our message is to agitate from the outside and to STAND YOUR GROUND when all we've been given over Obama's term were lies and corporatist bullshit on the backs of progressives and the youth coming out in droves. Why vote for a politician not even willing to stand up for what's right? Why normalize corruption? You call yourself a socialist and continue to vote for unabashedly capitalist politicians on the basis that "There's no other choice" it's just loving stupid propaganda passed down to you from the elites You're a moron, dude.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
self unaware posted:The false dichotomy you mean. You can also vote for good people that should win and would make the better place. I don't think you'd get brownie points for telling Hitler to gas the jews slower even though that appears to be the basis for the political self of most American liberals. It's a false dichotomy because both parties are precisely the same and are exactly as bad with no difference and if you disagree you're a liberal 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:One of two people win the presidency. If you're in a state that's close, you vote for the least worst option. Protest votes actively work against your goal. Wrong. quote:Yeah, Clinton would have stacked courts with federalist society 40yos, appointed Gorsuch, appointed Sessions to be the guy overseeing immigration courts, dismantled the State department that she once ran, appointed people to accellerate global warming and the dismantling of any environmental regulations, would have ignored Puerto Rico, would have but Kobach in charge of voting, etc. so lets go through these quote:would have stacked courts with federalist society 40yos probably true quote:appointed Gorsuch probably true quote:dismantled the State department that she once ran unironically a good thing so let's hope so quote:appointed people to accellerate global warming and the dismantling of any environmental regulations 100% true quote:would have ignored Puerto Rico of course? quote:would have but Kobach in charge of voting lol if you think Hillary would have tried to attack the governments of red states
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's a false dichotomy because both parties are precisely the same and are exactly as bad with no difference and if you disagree you're a liberal you may think it's admirable to build strawmen to burn down like a peacock trying to attract a mate but honestly it's kinda played out in 2018 self unaware posted:you're a lib because you vote for liberals, advocate for voting for liberals, and shame anyone who doesn't vote for liberals
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Wrong. This is the dumbest post I've ever seen. No obviously Hillary would not have appointed Gorsuch and the federalist society hacks. No obviously gutting the department responsible for international diplomacy is a bad idea. What is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This is the dumbest post I've ever seen. No obviously Hillary would not have appointed Gorsuch and the federalist society hacks. No obviously gutting the department responsible for international diplomacy is a bad idea. What is wrong with you? He's a moron. I specifically listed those things because it exposes how much of an idiot he is if he says the Democrats would do them. I mean, even the people who are borderline on the worth of voting for Democrats acknowledge the court appointments is the one good argument they accept.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:What is wrong with you? Whataboutism is really effective. I've seen a lot of other leftists having convinced themselves that both sides are really just equally bad and they back themselves into all sorts of idiot corners because of it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
self unaware is NewForumsSoftware. I would advise against arguing with him.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This is the dumbest post I've ever seen. No obviously Hillary would not have appointed Gorsuch and the federalist society hacks. Based on what? quote:No obviously gutting the department responsible for international diplomacy is a bad idea. What is wrong with you? Have you seen what the US's "International Diplomacy" looks like recently? I think Hondurans probably could use a little less of it. Jaxyon posted:Whataboutism is really effective. I've seen a lot of other leftists having convinced themselves that both sides are really just equally bad and they back themselves into all sorts of idiot corners because of it. Again, both sides aren't the same, the Democrats are worse because the co-opt all the political energy for change from the disenfranchised in the country and use it to further entrench our oligarchy. I mean, maybe you weren't alive for Obama's presidency but just lmao if you don't think the GOP wouldn't have dictated every single action that came out of Hillary's White House. Majorian posted:self unaware is NewForumsSoftware. I would advise against arguing with him. oh look another "But I voted for Bernie in the primary!" liberal 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 20:40 on May 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:self unaware is NewForumsSoftware. I would advise against arguing with him. I don't know who that is. But at least I got him to post exactly the level of Dumb he is.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I don't know who that is. But at least I got him to post exactly the level of Dumb he is. You act like I haven't said the same thing in countless threads on these forums? You could have just asked. I was the one who told you the Dems are worse than the GOP. Don't worry, I'm used to "socialists" like you and Majoram who have lined up their entire lives to vote for capitalists and will attack anyone who doesn't do so as being "a Trump supporter". Meanwhile you're casting votes for the political party that fought to have Trump win the GOP nomination. I love that you can't help but gurgle about "whataboutism" as if that has anything to do with what I'm saying. Scratch a Hillary voting "socialist" and a liberal bleeds. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 20:48 on May 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You say your idea makes sense. Why does a major voting block of the party, that presumably the Dems do not care about, keep voting for them? This is the same argument people used to claim that Bernie Sanders would have been worse for black people than Hillary Clinton. Generally speaking, most people, regardless of demographic, are going to align with some sort of mainstream ideology, just because of the fact it's mainstream. Poor people usually align with mainstream Democrats, wealthier whites usually align with Republicans, etc. Having a viewpoint that isn't mainstream, by definition, kinda implies that you think you're right about something most other people are wrong about, and there's nothing wrong about that. It's usually not a matter of being smarter or dumber, but just the specific experiences a person has had and information they have been exposed to. edit: To be explicit, it's not like the majority of black women who vote Democratic have somehow happened upon the One True Perfect Ideology and that it's somehow racist to claim that there could be a flaw in the ideology of this specific demographic in 2018 (just like literally everyone's ideology probably has some flaws). Suggesting as such also implies some very problematic things, like any black leftists (or literally anyone who doesn't hold mainstream political views) being inherently wrong by virtue of not holding the majority view. Being wrong does not mean someone is "stupid" or "a sucker." I am wrong about many things. Everyone is wrong about things. Politics is a subject where most people are wrong about most things. This is basically the problem with your logic: Iron Twinkie posted:Do you consider black voters that voted in 2012 but stayed home in 2016 stupid or suckers? It implies that anyone who doesn't hold the opinions of the majority (of whatever demographic/group is being considered) by definition holds views that must be inferior, at least with respect to that particular demographic/group. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:52 on May 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
self unaware posted:Based on what? Wait, I was under the assumption that everyone in here knew the Republican party was objectively the "greater evil" when referring to "lesser of two evils" voting. This whole discussion was about whether voting for Dems just because they aren't as bad is a good idea, right? Like, just LO goddamn L if you breathe oxygen in the year 2018 and type what you did.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 00:36
|
|
