|
socialsecurity posted:Votes are how people win elections. Sure, and is that not an indication of support for what they do? Is this some sort of weird thing that the vote is for winning elections but it doesn't mean a show of support for what people do?
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Votes are how people win elections. US citizens who are 18 years old on or before Election Day can vote. Anyone can spout some random fact like that and it adds nothing to the conversation. Have you considered instead that your response to Josef should be related to what they were actually saying or do you think regurgitating random facts has some rhetorical value? The Sean fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Mar 31, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Sure, and is that not an indication of support for what they do? Is this some sort of weird thing that the vote is for winning elections but it doesn't mean a show of support for what people do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:It could, for example, be indicative of the fact that I support increased funding for climate resilience and scientific research, and one candidate is more likely to do that while another will slash the funding and end programs that I depend on. That doesn't mean I care about TikTok being divested, which is another thing that could be endorsed by the same candidate. But if we treat these things as a continuum as opposed to a hard line you can perhaps see why people would choose differently from yourself. Or if you elected someone based on one thing and were actively lied to about it, would you still vote/be required to vote for them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:This is the thing though, if you accept that it does exist then it's just an argument about degree and becomes a purely personal line of preference. Okay…once again, I’m not 100% sure of your point. TBH, it would help me understand your points/questions if you used more specific terms instead of referring to things like “it”. Because when you say “if it does exist” and “it still exists” I can’t be 100% certain what you’re referring to. But let me try to see if I’m interpreting it correctly. Are you asking why a vote isn’t showing 100% support [of a candidate’s positions]? If so, I’m confused on why you think it does show 100% support…. Kalit fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Mar 31, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 01:01
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Sure, and is that not an indication of support for what they do? Is this some sort of weird thing that the vote is for winning elections but it doesn't mean a show of support for what people do? It isn't useful to try to psychoanalyze someone's vote. There are too many things like conservatives voting for a socialist to protest Hillary Clinton to infer someone's entire political beliefs from checking one box. Here's a twitter bot that posts little profiles of real voters. Most of them are Democratic Biden voters who agree with Biden on every issue or Republican Trump voters who agree with him on every issue, but if you scroll through it a bit you can find things like this: https://twitter.com/American__Voter/status/1763264557706088798 https://twitter.com/American__Voter/status/1138491425035825152 edit: Josef bugman posted:Or if you elected someone based on one thing and were actively lied to about it, would you still vote/be required to vote for them? You aren't required to vote for anyone. It's a secret ballot. What you're talking about is that someone posts "I'm voting/not voting for X" on an internet forum for arguing about politics and people argue with them. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Mar 31, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 03:13
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Okay…once again, I’m not 100% sure of your point. TBH, it would help me understand your points/questions if you used more specific terms instead of referring to things like “it”. Because when you say “if it does exist” and “it still exists” I can’t be 100% certain what you’re referring to. The point is that there is an agreement that there are reasons why people should not vote at all, you simply define where the line is different from others. If this is the case, then it simply becomes a matter of preference and degree, not one of fundamental disagreement with the idea of withholding/none voting. Essentially the latter bit is attempting to say the following "One individual vote does almost nothing, but is simply a show of support for the candidate overall not for a particular part of the platform of said candidate and that level of compromise is up for interpretation by each person." James Garfield posted:It isn't useful to try to psychoanalyze someone's vote. There are too many things like conservatives voting for a socialist to protest Hillary Clinton to infer someone's entire political beliefs from checking one box. But this is the thing it's still showing, in practicable terms, support for a candidate. If I'm voting for Boe Jlogs because of his robust environmental record and not his "slaughter everyone born on May 7th" policy, I am still lending support to the latter through the vote. That doesn't mean that there is no level of compromise, merely that it is drawn in different places for different people. But this is the thing that the entire debate and purpose of this thread hinges on. The idea that you "need to vote" is a fairly major part of it. It may not be from folks in this thread in particular but we've all seen on this forum when people are told that not voting for X is, in effect, voting for Y.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 08:36
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:The point is that there is an agreement that there are reasons why people should not vote at all, you simply define where the line is different from others. If this is the case, then it simply becomes a matter of preference and degree, not one of fundamental disagreement with the idea of withholding/none voting. Eh... I don't know if I quite agree with your framing. It technically is a matter of preference and degree. But when the preference/degree is literally impossible to ever meet (e.g. never voting for someone who isn't going to actively dismantle the US's imperialistic tendencies), that's when I think it's not where the line is being drawn. That's when I think it reaches the whole "take your ball and go home" selfishness. Josef bugman posted:But this is the thing it's still showing, in practicable terms, support for a candidate. If I'm voting for Boe Jlogs because of his robust environmental record and not his "slaughter everyone born on May 7th" policy, I am still lending support to the latter through the vote. That doesn't mean that there is no level of compromise, merely that it is drawn in different places for different people. Can't the inverse of this also be true? For example, if you refuse to vote in the US for POTUS in 2024 (and are left leaning to whatever degree), doesn't that mean you are being unsupportive of things that Biden would continue to work on? Such as more affordable college, transgender rights, etc?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 14:02
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Eh... I don't know if I quite agree with your framing. It technically is a matter of preference and degree. But when the preference/degree is literally impossible to ever meet (e.g. never voting for someone who isn't going to actively dismantle the US's imperialistic tendencies), that's when I think it's not where the line is being drawn. That's when I think it reaches the whole "take your ball and go home" selfishness. But it's not selfish. It's just different. Selfishness is doing bad things and then demanding that others ignore it because you can also do good things, but you probably won't do as many good things as bad things because, once again, our systems of rule make it stupidly easy to kill and maim and despoil and not to improve stuff. If you believe the structure itself is rotten, why support it? Ultimately I just wanted to see what other people think and it seems that this will become a more detail orientated conversation from now on, which is not one I am probably best equipped to answer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 14:47
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:See this is the thing, I am unsure as to how choosing who helms the empire changes the underlying assumptions of Imperialism. It may be different in terms of what is done, but the involvement of the USA in various places does not change because the structures are still there. Biden has pulled back on the more bellicose and imperialist parts of American foreign policy form the W. Bush era. Withdrawal from Afghanistan, less use of the American military. Trying to use diplomacy as ways to better decision making. There is a clear difference between him and Trump in the next election. Electorally, in the United States if you want less "imperial" action than the choice is Joe Biden in a hypothetical Biden/Trump match up. But I think this gets at the fundamental problem I have had with the electoral debates we have here. Democracy is inherently a collective action and requires people to organize around people, ideals, and candidates. Discussing votes at the individual level, to me anyways, misses the point on how we're suppose to be doing this. Because no candidate is going to get to 100% of what you want individually and you and another person are going to come in conflict on how you want your government should operate. So, how can any candidate ever be good enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 14:50
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Can't the inverse of this also be true? For example, if you refuse to vote in the US for POTUS in 2024 (and are left leaning to whatever degree), doesn't that mean you are being unsupportive of things that Biden would continue to work on? Such as more affordable college, transgender rights, etc? "Continue to work on" implies that he is doing anything substantial in the categories you mentioned. He isn't. So, for your answer, it's impossible to be unupportive of a thing a candidate is not focused on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 15:05
|
|
|
The Sean posted:"Continue to work on" implies that he is doing anything substantial in the categories you mentioned. He isn't. So, for your answer, it's impossible to be unupportive of a thing a candidate is not focused on. Is this based on anything or do you just not like Joe Biden? Here is GLAAD's tracker on LGBTQ work: https://glaad.org/biden-harris/ this includes statements and actions taken by the administration. You can read about green energy policy here. Which was passed with a slim majority. A $1.2 trillion dollar investment into infrastructure and than another what $600 billion in green energy investments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 15:55
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Is this based on anything or do you just not like Joe Biden? It is entirely reasonable to draw the line of a lesser evil voters can stomach at “funding a genocide” and green energy investment doesn’t really move the needle. I am a single policy voter when it comes to funding a genocidal rogue state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 17:24
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:It is entirely reasonable to draw the line of a lesser evil voters can stomach at “funding a genocide” and green energy investment doesn’t really move the needle. I am a single policy voter when it comes to funding a genocidal rogue state. That's not what the Sean said though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Biden has pulled back on the more bellicose and imperialist parts of American foreign policy form the W. Bush era. Withdrawal from Afghanistan, less use of the American military. Trying to use diplomacy as ways to better decision making. There is a clear difference between him and Trump in the next election. Electorally, in the United States if you want less "imperial" action than the choice is Joe Biden in a hypothetical Biden/Trump match up. Biden executed the Trump agreed withdrawl, so it's odd to attest that particular "win" to Biden. I use "win" in quotes here because that situation was so entirely hosed and of a series of US administrations makings that I'm not sure there was any good answer other than "Get a time machine". I agree that no candidate is going to have 100%, but I also think that always choosing to strictly vote for the lesser evil has just as much of a problem, so a line is somewhere in between. My view is that you can not change the direction of a party without replacing elected members of that party and vote withdrawl in elections as well as participation in primaries and local races is a way of changing that. At the end of the day voting for a party is endorsing the general movement and actions of the party and everyone chooses whether they are willing to make that endorsement or to say "no this isn't good enough" and not vote in the election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Is this based on anything or do you just not like Joe Biden? Yeah, and that tracker is pretty much a collection of statements instead of action. I've already explained how useless this is. My previous position stands. Biden is not a champion of the LBGTQ+ community--the thing you are responding to me about--and your attempt to state otherwise is pretty sad. My opinion about Biden has no effect on what he has or has not done for LBGTQ persons. It's weird for you to bring up my personal opinion as a distraction tactic to cover for Biden's actions (or lack thereof). You trying to bring up my opinion of BIden is a clear distraction away from conversing about what Biden has or has not done as POTUS. The Sean fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Apr 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 20:04
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Yeah, and that tracker is pretty much a collection of statements instead of action. My previous position stands. Biden is not a champion of the LBGTQ+ community--the thing you are responding to me about--and your attempt to state otherwise is pretty sad. From the White House itself: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...qi-communities/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...ng-pride-month/ From Center from American ProgresS: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/timeline-biden-administrations-efforts-support-lgbtq-equality-first-100-days/ The first year: https://19thnews.org/2022/01/biden-promises-lgbtq-americans-first-year/ Mooseontheloose fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Apr 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:From the White House itself: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...qi-communities/ Oh, wow. A bunch of announcements that don't result in any direct action. I'm so impressed at these gestures! The Sean fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Apr 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 20:15
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:From the White House itself: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...qi-communities/ FYI, that poster is just trolling and has already been shown all of this before, probably multiple times. They will just keep claiming that anything Biden has done isn't "action", "substantial enough", or something similar to that. That's why I ignored their baited response earlier. Kalit fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Apr 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Oh, wow. A bunch of announcements that don't result in any direct action. I'm so impressed at these gestures! They're literally actions. They are literally saying, government do this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
Kalit posted:They will just keep claiming that anything Biden has done isn't "substantial enough" or something similar to that. Yeah, the bar for "Person substantially did something" relies on substantive action. Pretty basic poo poo. Kalit posted:FYI, that poster is just trolling Rule I.B - Assume good faith. The Sean fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Apr 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Yeah, the bar for "Person substantially did something" relies on substantive action. Pretty basic poo poo. Tell me what in those announcements isn't substantive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 20:26
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Tell me what in those announcements isn't substantive. Sure 09.23.2022 LGBTQ legend Elton John headlines a concert on the White House lawn
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Sure Again, you aren't addressing the actual actions taken by the Biden administration. Tell me what is not substantive of the orders and actions taken.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 20:31
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Again, you aren't addressing the actual actions taken by the Biden administration. Tell me what is not substantive of the orders and actions taken. This what you asked: Mooseontheloose posted:Tell me what in those announcements isn't substantive. I delivered exactly what you asked for, from the source you referred to. Sorry that I answered your call and it didn't make your position look any better. Don't whine about the source that you leaned on. That's on you, dude. If you want to make a more honest request*, you can ask me to just blindly agree with you no matter what the evidence is. At least at that point I can tell you "no, I won't do that." But don't expect to make demands of me otherwise where I would have to be dishonest in order to make posts that make you feel okay with your position. *Stating this because I answered what you asked for but you attacked me anyways. The Sean fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Apr 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
-On President Joe Biden’s first day in office, he signed an executive order (EO) directing all federal agencies that enforce federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination to also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in areas including but not limited to employment, housing, health care, education, and credit. From the time of the announcement, each agency has 100 days to develop plans to implement the executive order—meaning they are due this week. - One area where the Biden administration did offer concrete policy for transgender youth was in the establishment of Title IX sex discrimination protections for transgender kids. The directive from the Department of Education allows the federal government to investigate complaints of discrimination against trans kids in schools, something that the administration of President Donald Trump declined to take up. -Early this year (2022), the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it was restoring the Obama-era protections and adding new rules to bolster insurance coverage for gender-affirming medical care. - To protect against these increasing threats, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with support from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), will launch the LGBTQI+ Community Safety Partnership. The Partnership will work hand-in-hand with LGBTQI+ community organizations to provide critical safety resources to ensure these organizations can remain safe spaces for the community. In acknowledgement of the mistreatment that LGBTQI+ communities have often faced in interactions with law enforcement, the Partnership will also work to build trust between LGBTQI+ organizations and federal law enforcement agencies. The Partnership will: -Provide dedicated safety trainings for LGBTQI+ community organizations and increase federal threat briefings for LGBTQI+ organizations. DHS, through the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), will provide trainings to LGBTQI+ community organizations – including community centers, small businesses, and Pride festivals – to help them prevent and respond to threats. DHS will host bi-monthly threat briefings (or as required based on changes in the threat levels) for LGBTQI+ organizations to provide updates on the threat landscape and review key indicators of violence, and offer resources for local leaders. DHS will also lead a series of workshops for LGBTQI+ community organizations to raise awareness of federal funding for both physical security and threat prevention grant opportunities. -Protect health care providers who serve the LGBTQI+ community. DHS and HHS will work with health care providers and medical associations to provide access to safety trainings and improve threat reporting to support doctors, clinics, and children’s hospitals that face increasing threats when they care for LGBTQI+ patients. -Support LGBTQI+ communities to report hate crimes and build cross-community partnerships to address hate-fueled violence. U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, FBI Field Offices, DOJ Community Relations Service (CRS), the Civil Rights Division and others will undertake targeted engagement with community groups from the LGBTQI+ community and other communities victimized by hate crimes to increase understanding about how to report hate crimes. DOJ will also enhance public trust and public safety by partnering with state and local law enforcement agencies to increase the number of law enforcement officers who have completed CRS’s training programs on engaging with transgender individuals. Through its United Against Hate initiative, which brings together diverse communities to help improve the reporting of hate crimes and provide an opportunity for trust building between law enforcement and communities, DOJ will engage LGBTQI+ communities and other communities victimized by hate crimes as the program is expanded to all 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices by the end of September. -Support the mental health of LGBTQI+ youth and partner with families to affirm LGBTQI+ kids. LGBTQI+ youth face a nationwide mental health crisis, and almost half of LGBTQI+ kids say they seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year. However, when LGBTQI+ kids are supported, they thrive. Today, HHS is announcing it will issue a Behavioral Health Care Advisory on Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth to provide evidence-based practices for mental health providers. HHS will also issue a guidance to states and communities on using federal funding to support mental health services for LGBTQI+ youth, including funding from the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and provide technical assistance to communities to increase LGBTQI+ youth mental health services. HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has also just released an LGBTQI+ Family Support Grant to provide $1.7 million in federal funding for programs that prevent health and behavioral health risks for LGBTQI+ youth (including suicide and homelessness) by helping families to affirm and support their LGBTQI+ child. -Protect LGBTQI+ youth in foster care. LGBTQI+ youth are overrepresented in the child welfare system, and far too often experience trauma, including being exposed to so-called “conversion therapy” while in care, being placed in foster care or congregate care settings that are hostile to their identity, or lacking access to health care and mental health services to support them. Today, the Administration for Children and Families at HHS is announcing that it will advance a rulemaking under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to protect LGBTQI+ youth in foster care by requiring that state child welfare agencies ensure that LGBTQI+ youth have access to a safe and appropriate placement and have access to supportive services that help to affirm them. To inform this potential proposed rule, HHS will continue engaging with LGBTQI+ youth, foster parents, and other stakeholders. -Shield LGBTQI+ kids and families from discrimination. The HHS Office for Civil Rights is announcing that it expects to issue proposed regulations to protect LGBTQI+ kids and families from discrimination in human services programs that support children and families. This Rule would strengthen protections eroded by the previous Administration to help protect LGBTQI+ Americans from discrimination. -Address LGBTQI+ youth homelessness. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is announcing that it will launch a new LGBTQI+ Youth Homelessness Initiative to partner with local communities, service providers, and directly affected young people to address LGBTQI+ youth homelessness. Nearly 40 percent of all youth experiencing homelessness identify as LGBTQI+. HUD will encourage communities to develop collaborative solutions to address the specific needs of LGBTQI+ youth experiencing homelessness. HUD will also provide technical assistance and regular training for shelter and service providers, new resources highlighting innovative methods for supporting LGBTQI+ youth, and Know Your Rights tools for LGBTQI+ youth. This work will be informed by listening sessions HUD will hold with LGBTQI+ youth across the country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:-On President Joe Biden’s first day in office, he signed an executive order (EO) directing all federal agencies that enforce federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination to also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in areas including but not limited to employment, housing, health care, education, and credit. From the time of the announcement, each agency has 100 days to develop plans to implement the executive order—meaning they are due this week. Is this in response to me or something? You didn't write like a person would. Just a low-effort copy paste without any context, rhetoric, or really anything of value. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) The Sean fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Apr 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 22:13
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Rule I.B - Assume good faith. It’s a fact, not an assumption (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
Kalit posted:It’s a fact, not an assumption Thanks for further confirming that you are breaking the rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:It is entirely reasonable to draw the line of a lesser evil voters can stomach at “funding a genocide” and green energy investment doesn’t really move the needle. I am a single policy voter when it comes to funding a genocidal rogue state. I would be interested to know why my post was reported and what the claimed rule I broke was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:I would be interested to know why my post was reported and what the claimed rule I broke was. I'm going to clarify here because you might not know, but this is off-topic. If you haven't been punished for a post after some time, as is the case here, you were found not to have broken any rules so you don't need to worry what it was reported for. If in the future you're worried about this, you may PM me and I'll tell you if the report has been handled yet or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 22:26
|
|
|
Can someone offer a single, coherent, reality based argument that not voting for Biden is better than voting for Biden? I'm not asking for it to be good or convincing, or to be one I accept, I just want it to be fully formed and understandable, so that at the very least I have a starting point to try to work from to understand the point of view (well, I've seen two arguments of the sort I'm looking for, but I'm pretty confident none of you are going to bring either of them up and probably wouldn't consider them valid yourselves)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 04:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Can someone offer a single, coherent, reality based argument that not voting for Biden is better than voting for Biden? I'm in a red state that Biden's not going to win. I oppose the genocide. So if he's not going to win anyway, why bother throwing away a vote on him? If enough people in locked red states did this, to create a collapse in his vote totals there, I think it might impact at least the next generation of Democratic aspirants to cool their jets on supporting an apartheid state. I consider this a pretty practical argument that allows Dems in red states to think about their vote strategically. I'm not saying not vote at all, and also don't personalize it down to catastrophization fantasies about being the one vote Biden needed to flip your state blue--that's silly. But if he's going to lose your state, and most states are pretty predetermined, then withhold your vote, and send the message that way. I wouldn't have voted for him anyway, and didn't in '20, but that was for my own reasons. This is the practical argument I make to the handwringing liberals, which in the little blue dot of a college town in the otherwise largely red state I live in, is something I run into a lot. Terrified of Trump, but too surrounded by young people to be able to pretend they don't know what's going on in Gaza. Most people just get angry and refuse to engage, even some of them being people who agree with the premise--that our electoral votes are pretty much in the bag for Trump. selec fucked around with this message at 05:26 on May 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 05:24
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Can someone offer a single, coherent, reality based argument that not voting for Biden is better than voting for Biden? This isn't an argument I personally support, but the way my anti-"vote blue no matter who" friend puts it is something to the effect of: Your vote does not carry any inherent information with it. If you vote for A, the only thing an external observer can see is that you voted for A. From the outside, it's impossible to tell if you voted for Candidate A because you genuinely like them, or because you don't want to see Candidate B win. The only message that you have sent is "Candidate A is deserving of my vote." Voting is one of the few tools we as individuals have that can have a meaningful impact on politics. The outcome of an election is a reflection of how the electorate feels about a wide variety of things, distilled into a bunch of percentages. Politicians don't just look at who won or lost, but they also look at how the actual votes were cast, and make adjustments based on that in order to win the next election. If Candidate A wins by a landslide, then that's a signal that nothing needs to change. If they win by a very narrow margin, then that shows that their victory was tenuous, and they need to do work to secure a better outcome in the next election. As such, if you either do not vote, or you vote for a spoiler candidate, you are specifically signaling that you do not think Candidate A is deserving of your vote. If enough people vote this way, and it hurts Candidate A's totals in an unpredicted way (such as an expected landslide instead having a very close margin), then Candidate A's team will have to change their tactics going forward if they want to win. Where I think this breaks down is that this only works if you do not actually care about the outcome of the election. This could either be because you legitimately don't give a poo poo about who wins, or it could be because you're in a situation where a spoiler vote won't have an effect on the outcome, such as in a deep red or blue state where the result is practically predetermined. If you are in a position where your vote might matter, and you do care about who wins the election, then you now have to determine if it is worth tipping the scales a little bit in your chosen candidate's favor, even if it means you're sending the signal that you think your candidate is worth voting for.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 05:53
|
|
|
blastron posted:Where I think this breaks down is that this only works if you do not actually care about the outcome of the election. That argument also says voting isn't useful because the candidate doesn't know why you voted for them, but paragraph four implies that if you don't vote the candidate will know why you didn't vote for them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 06:35
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:That argument also says voting isn't useful because the candidate doesn't know why you voted for them, but paragraph four implies that if you don't vote the candidate will know why you didn't vote for them. What I tried to convey is that unexpected outcomes signal that something is wrong. If Party A is historically at +20 in a district, and they get +2 due to low turnout or protest votes (rather than Candidate B seeing a massive upsurge), then that merits examination as to why A-leaning voters didn’t vote for A. Ideally, this will lead to polling and research that turns into policy changes, which then increase popularity and, thus, turnout. Yes, the raw vote totals don’t literally show that people who voted for A last election stayed home, since there’s no tracking of individuals, but that’s what targeted polling would try to figure out in the wake of the election.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 07:33
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Can someone offer a single, coherent, reality based argument that not voting for Biden is better than voting for Biden? You don't want to show support for someone assisting/actively doing a genocide. Again to use a home grown example the Labour Party in my country are becoming increasingly transphobic, rolling back any promise made about improving things and actively saying that they would keep current government procedures in place. I don't want to support them doing this so I will not vote for thm. Why is the US presidential election any different other than scope? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 07:49 on May 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 07:46
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:You don't want to show support for someone assisting/actively doing a genocide. Except that in addition to the problem that no candidate will know the specifics of why someone didn't vote for them, the outcome does not match the intent. Either Biden or Trump will win the election. Trump's statements and previous actions as president demonstrate that he is even MORE pro-genocide than Biden. Not voting against Trump does not mean that the voter is against genocide, it means that the voter at best, does not care if Trump wins and the genocide is pursued even more aggressively. The error is ultimately believing that decades and decades and decades of support for Israel can be switched off like a lightbulb if you just do this one weird trick of not voting for Biden. Impossible. It can't be done overnight. There is no way to act regarding the President section of the ballot in order to not support the Palestinian genocide (at least to the level it was pre-October 7th). All outcomes for President -- and this is important: including non-voting -- will end up supporting the genocide or worsening it. If you want to change U.S. policy, it has to be done with a sea change in the House and Senate to replace over time members who support Israel with ones who do not. It will be a long, painstaking process, taking years.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 12:09
|
|
|
In regards to point one, about the candidate not knowing why, "oh well". I'm sorry that they can't count on my vote due to supporting genocide, but I happen to have a red line there. If they want to change their mind then they can count on it. If it's a democracy and I'm supposed to have freedom of conscience to choose, I can just not vote. Either Biden or Trump will, and the machinery of empire will keep killing people and you expect people to reconcile themselves to that and do their civic duty. If you were in a foreign nation, and I was helping to kill you, and your families and friends and anyone you have ever loved because "well, this needs to happen because we've got an agreement about night vision goggles with the nation that is doing the killing and you can't just ask us to change our minds" do you think you'd regard me as mentally well? Your saying it'll take time, well this is the starting point then, isn't it. "You can't just do this", well tough. People can and have stopped voting for people for far more stupid reasons. And because you have reconciled yourself to doing genocide because it's the best of a bad situation, then I ask you to look at yourself and consider what you have just laid out. If you are okay with that then continue, if not then maybe there are other options. There is always compromise, but to what level of compromise do you want to reach?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
As others pointed out this one is pretty incoherent. It actively argues against itself. If the baseline assumption "Your vote does not carry any inherent information" is true, then "you should withhold your vote to convey they need to change" doesn't really follow, and it has big gaps - in order for not voting for Biden to be the better option, it needs to argue the resulting change would be for the better, which it doesn't do. Which is understandable, since you don't support the argument yourself, maybe someone who does can resolve the inconsistency and fill out the rest. Josef bugman posted:You don't want to show support for someone assisting/actively doing a genocide. This is not an argument. It's barely an assertion, and I'm not a mind reader so I'm not going to try to derive how it might become one. It meets zero of my stated criteria. Some advice: Is this an underlying core value? If so, you then need to describe how the action (not voting for Biden) better advances that value than the alternative. It's also an odd core value, so if it's a secondary value it would help to tie it to a core value in a coherent way, and if it is a primary it might help to explain why someone else should see it as one. Is this simply your conclusion? If so, you need to explain how the desired action leads to it, and why it is desirable. Is this a supporting argument? If so, you need to explain what it actually supports and how its relevant. In all cases, you need to explain how the action (not voting for biden) ties into the argument (not showing support for him) and serves some value better than the opposite action. So if I understand this right, the argument is "If you're in a conservative state, it is better to not vote for Biden because Biden receiving less votes in a conservative state will (or might) convince the next Democratic candidate to provide less support for Israel, which will limit their ability to conduct genocide, which it is desirable to avoid". Coherent, at least, but I hesitate to call it reality based without supporting evidence of some sort - it seems like the connection between the vote withholding and the desired outcome is very tenuous. It also sounds like, for you at least, it's exclusively a retroactive justification rather than a motivating argument and you don't actually buy it yourself? Probably the best response so far, though, so I'll think on it a bit more. Thanks. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 14:21 on May 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 14:12
|
|