|
hooman posted:I don't assume they know why I am withholding my vote at all. How is that going to influence the politician or party to move in your preferred direction? If they even notice at all, how would they know that you aren't withholding the vote because Biden is LESS pro-Israel than you want?
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
The Sean posted:It does matter to me. You seem to be unaware that Biden did not write that bill, the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED HOUSE did. You also seem to be unable to understand the concept of spending bills, or are unaware that Presidents specifically are legally banned from individually vetoing specific lines and therefore the only way to remove that part would be to veto the entire big package, start the budget process all over again and hope the Republicans don't just put the exact same provision in again. In other words, your post does not reflect well on you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
The Sean posted:"Signed by President Biden" Oh, sorry. Apparently I wasn't clear enough with my explanation. Let me try again: You're a moron. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Apparently I wasn't clear enough: Okay, so you expect Biden to veto the entire budget bill over that one line. Do you have a plan to stop the Republicans from putting that line in the next budget they put forth, and the next, and the next, until the debt ceiling is reached? You've vastly oversimplifying the issue to the point of absurdity. Budgets are imperfect, and they're especially difficult to put together with a split House and Senate. You don't have to like that part got into the bill, I don't like that part being in the bill either. However, your viable choices for President are either Joe Biden, or a member of a party which is openly anti-LGBTQ+ and passing bills to that effect in states all over the country. The way to get more LGBTQ champions, the way to get that crap out of budget bills is to get more Democrats elected. I don't see how you get to where you want from your methods.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Cool for all that. I'm happy to respond after you respond to the original discussion instead of gishgalloping around it. What is your goal in making your claim? What is the policy outcome you are seeking? Am I supposed to believe that with a Republican party which is practically trying to make LGBTQ+ citizens non-persons with all the laws they're passing in multiple states, that you really, really need some additional incentive to try and keep a Republican out of office? EDIT: Well, if you're not going to answer my simple question, then I'm not going to engage in this discussion any further. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Mar 30, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted: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. You missed my point. Unless you've stopped paying taxes and have moved somewhere remote and live completely off the grid, you are, in some small way always supporting genocide. Always. I'm not a U.S. citizen, and the last residential school in Canada (one form of genocide) closed before I was old enough to vote or pay taxes, but I still was part of a society which contributed towards supporting genocide. Some people have the impression that a refusal to cast a vote for President is some kind of trick to morally absolve themselves of blame for Biden's actions (and inactions). That impression is mistaken. Not voting is not "none of the above," but "either Biden OR Trump," because those are the only possible outcomes. "Either Trump or Biden," means you're fine with a Trump win. In turn, that means you're fine with Trump supporting not just the genocide of Palestinians (and even accelerating it), but also fine with the United States supporting Russia and its campaign of genocide against Ukraine, and also fine with discrimination against trans people, and also fine with a nationwide abortion ban, and so on. It is contradictory to say "I am against genocide," while simultaneously putting yourself in the column which says "I have no problem if Trump wins and commits genocide harder." EDIT: GlyphGrpyh put it better, but I agree: I don't see how not voting for Biden better supports the goal of "not supporting genocide" than the alternative. What level of compromise am I fine with? The level which says that Trump must be voted against, ESPECIALLY if you're supposedly concerned about genocide. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 14:36 on May 8, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2024 14:30
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:1) Your voting for someone whose making peoples life worse because you think it's still better than the alternative. Your still doing harm, you just don't care because you've categorised it as "less harm" to get around thinking about the harm still being done. You invoke powerlessness with one hand and the ability to change things with the other and refuse to examine yourself because to do so would be to make you culpable for everything done in your name. 1) "Your voting for someone whose making peoples life worse because you think it's still better than the alternative." No poo poo? This is literally a "water is wet" statement. Every possible candidate is going to make people's lives worse for at least some group of people. A person whom literally 100% of people approve of and are in complete agreement with on every issue has never appeared on any ballot, ever. People are individuals formed from their individual experiences, and hence will have different opinions. There are always "winners" and "losers" in politics. No matter what policies they support, someone is going to believe that their life will be worse off because of it. From the sound of it, you are seeking a mythical perfection which can never be achieved once it comes into contact with reality. You're criticizing others for living in reality and not delusion. 5) Your assertion is false. Voting is not magic which compels you to support the system against your will and prevents you from doing things other than voting. You also have not established how "not voting" can create a way for those "parallel structures" to come into existence and be able to replace or change the existing structure, or how "not voting" will prevent the existing power structure from crushing those "parallel structures," but voting will help crush them. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 04:57 on May 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2024 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:1) Is this the root of the problem? Do you fundamentally see politics as zero-sum and every single political choice as making life worse for someone? Do you believe that, say, providing food and housing will make life worse for people? I've also already said that, multiple times that your not always going to agree with people. But sometimes the level of harm done is going to make people less likely to trust you when you say you understand and think of them as equal partners in politics? If you vote for someone who continues to do harm to a specific minority group because "least bad option" it's quite likely that members of that group will find anything you say backing them to be somewhat hollow. That was the sole point here. No, I agree that politics is not "zero-sum." I'm pointing out that your definition of "making peoples life worse" is so broad as to encompass pretty much all political decisions. Providing food and housing will absolutely make life better for a lot of people, and it is a tremendous good... but a certain number of people who won't benefit from that will see such spending as taking away from things they care about, and from their point of view, it will make life worse for them. Josef bugman posted:5) Can you not grasp how supporting a system by engaging with is helps to prevent the growth of different systems? I cannot. Nothing is stopping Bob from taking an hour out of one day (once every several years) to vote before going back to the picket line, or to petitioning for ranked choice voting/proportional representation, or advocating for their cause online, or even to his militia camp to train for the Inevitable Glorious Revolution. quote:At the start of this conversation I didn't consider myself morally different? I was mainly going "People should be allowed to express their displeasure with the political structure that currently exists by none interaction, as long as they are doing other stuff in parallel to improve the political situation for people alongside that". But seeing the amount of people going "I would vote for someone doing a genocide and be okay about it because it's the least bad option" is making me feel as if I might actually have a completely different moral framework. People might wish that neither of the major candidates wins. But even if 90% of people in the U.S. cast a ballot with "None of the Above" written in for President, there are no circumstances in which "None of the Above" is going to be sworn into office. "None of the Above" is not going to write or sign legislation, "None of the Above" is not going to pick a cabinet and nominate judges. There is always going to be an actual person occupying the office. The only signal that all not voting or writing in "None of the Above," or voting for a hopeless third party will send is that you have no strong opinions on whether the lesser or greater evil wins. In remaining neutral, by definition you would have no problem with the "greater evil" winning and advancing policies the "greater evil" wants. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2024 13:28
|
|