| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of us maybe just aren't that resigned to the fate our corporate masters have decreed. I KNOW I'm stuck with Clinton or Trump this time. It's next time, and the time after, that I'm looking at. And in my estimation action needs to start before the 2020 primaries. It needs to start now, with unprecedented numbers of people saying, "Look, give us someone we can vote for, mkay?" And you don't do that by agreeably voting for whomever you're given.
This is not how you get Presidents elected. You cannot succeed by starting with the most powerful office in the country and working your way down. If you want a third-party candidate, make that third party relevant in local politics first. It's a long, hard road and the impatient aren't going to walk it.
We've had surges in third party votes in (relatively) recent history. They have not resulted in the change you're talking about.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that abstaining from voting in the hope that we'll end up with sham elections is a viable strategy?If it's that one the one hand, or vote for an increasing wealth gap, more foreign wars, more mass imprisonment domestically on the other? Yes, it would be preferable. If our elections are shams anyway, we might as well be honest about it.
The fact that you, personally, don't like the people we nominate doesn't mean that the elections are a sham. We have democratic elections between democratically-selected candidates. You just don't like the outcome.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that abstaining from voting in the hope that we'll end up with sham elections is a viable strategy?If it's that one the one hand, or vote for an increasing wealth gap, more foreign wars, more mass imprisonment domestically on the other? Yes, it would be preferable. If our elections are shams anyway, we might as well be honest about it.
Dude, I get that you're frustrated -- many people are -- but sabotage rarely ends well. You alluded to several more productive ways to channel your frustration just a few posts ago.
Besides, NOT voting looks just like apathy, which plays right into the hands of those corporate masters you mentioned...
Have you actually looked at the difference between say... how Trump runs his charity versus how Clinton runs hers? Based on your statements, I would have to say no.
You've bought into complete falsehoods about Clinton, while ignoring verifiable facts about Trump.
I don't have to look at the Clinton Foundation to see how the Clintons do things, because I can look at what they actually did when they had the office for 8 years. NAFTA, globalization, lowered regulations on corporations and banking. The Clintons and neo liberalism go hand-and-hand. None of that is disputable.
I'm not ignoring anything about Trump. He is a lying scumbag who pays money to politicians. Hillary is a lying scumbag who gets money from guys like Trump. Trump AND Hillary are the problem. They are the yin and yang of crony capitalism, and if you reward either one with your vote, you should not be surprised when you get more crony capitalism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have to look at the Clinton Foundation to see how the Clintons do things, because I can look at what they actually did when they had the office for 8 years.Have you actually looked at the difference between say... how Trump runs his charity versus how Clinton runs hers? Based on your statements, I would have to say no.
You've bought into complete falsehoods about Clinton, while ignoring verifiable facts about Trump.
They had the office? I didn't realize that the president was a joint office.
Scott -- I didn't specify third-party. You did.
The fact that you, personally, don't like the people we nominate doesn't mean that the elections are a sham. We have democratic elections between democratically-selected candidates. You just don't like the outcome.
Dubya in a skirt or Dubya in a wig? Does the costume really mean anything at that point? I know you think there's a night-and-day difference between the two. Not everyone agrees. That's like saying Iran is a liberal democracy rather than a theocracy because Ahmadinejad was elected.
Scott and Jeff -- I didn't specify third-party. You did.
So who did you want to win, Kirth?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dubya in a skirt or Dubya in a wig? Does the costume really mean anything at that point? I know you think there's a night-and-day difference between the two. Not everyone agrees.
Everyone whose opinion on politics I have more than a passing tolerance for does. I have absolutely zero patience for the fashionably cynical belief that the two major party nominees are interchangeable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not ignoring anything about Trump. He is a lying scumbag who pays money to politicians. Hillary is a lying scumbag who gets money from
guys likeTrump. Trump AND Hillary are the problem. They are the yin and yang of crony capitalism, and if you reward either one with your vote, you should not be surprised when you get more crony capitalism.
So what is the solution?
Neither one is going to stop being a crony capitalist because they don't get your vote. or even feel bad about it.
The goal is to end or at least reduce crony capitalism. Not avoid dirtying your hands and keep your soul clean
you don't vote for either------->Something happens-----> Crony capitalism reduced.
How is that supposed to work? I don't see a path there for anything to change.
Ideally: You vote for clinton---> clinton gets into office---> Citizens united gets overturned---> less corporate control= less crony capitalism = less corporate control in a positive feedback loop.
and if that DOESN"T happen, and things stay the same, or worse..
Trump gets into office--->citizens united gets expanded---> more corporate control of government---> more crony capitalism---> more corporate control of government into a downward spiral.
Politics is selling your soul. The idea is to get the best price you can.
So who did you want to win, Kirth?
Ideally, I'd want such a low turnout that the election is considered null and void. Practically, I want such a low turnout that the big Democrat donors say, "Ya know, we should have backed Sanders; he would have been a slam-dunk instead of a barely-made-it. Let's think about that for next time." And the big Republican donors say, "Let's not back lunatic reality show hosts next time; it's a no-win deal."
To get candidates worth voting for, you need to convince the people with the money to donate to the right candidates. To do that, you have to show that the likes of the current batch are NOT competitive. To do that, you have to show that there are a LOT of voters -- an electable margin worth -- who will actually stay home rather than back your dog.
None of that has anything to do with 3rd party anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So who did you want to win, Kirth?Ideally, I'd want such a low turnout that the election is considered null and void. Practically, I want such a low turnout that the big Democrat donors say, "Ya know, we should have backed Sanders; he would have been a slam-dunk instead of a barely-made-it. Let's think about that for next time." And the big Republican donors say, "Let's not back lunatic reality show hosts next time; it's a no-win deal."
To get candidates worth voting for, you need to convince the people with the money to donate to the right candidates. To do that, you have to show that the likes of the current batch are NOT competitive. To do that, you have to show that there are a LOT of voters -- an electable margin worth -- who will actually stay home rather than back your dog.
None of that has anything to do with 3rd party anything.
Wouldn't that just show them that they can buy the election by buying even fewer voters?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you, personally, don't like the people we nominate doesn't mean that the elections are a sham. We have democratic elections between democratically-selected candidates. You just don't like the outcome.Dubya in a skirt or Dubya in a wig? Does the costume really mean anything at that point? I know you think there's a night-and-day difference between the two.
You know, there's a difference between a "night-and-day difference" and the "no difference at all" you seem to see.
That's not just me. That's any rational observer. For example, insidegov.com rates the candidates on four major axes. Trump scores "moderately conservative" on individual rights, on domestic issues, and on economic issues. On defense and economic issues, he scores "slightly liberal."
By contrast, Clinton scores "moderately liberal" on individual rights, "very liberal" on domestic issues and economic issues, and "slightly liberal" (one point further left than Trump) on defense and economic issues.
Some examples of differences:
Clinton "strongly agrees" that abortion is a woman's unrestricted right; Trump "disagrees".
Clinton is comfortable with same-sex marriage; Trump is not.
Clinton strongly disagrees that EPA regulations are too restrictive; Trump strongly agrees that they are.
Clinton strongly disagrees with the existence of an absolute right to gun ownership; Trump strongly agrees with that concept.
Clinton strongly disagrees with vouchers for school choice; Trump strongly agrees.
Clinton strongly agrees to prioritize green energy; Trump strongly disagrees.
Clinton strongly agrees that government stimulus would be better than a market-led recovery; Trump strongly disagrees.
Clinton strongly agrees that there should be a path to citizen ship for illegal aliens, Trump strongly disagrees.
Clinton strongly disagrees with privatizing social security; Trump agrees with it.
... I'm not going to retype the entire web site; you can do it yourself. And if you don't like that site, isidewith.com has a similar set of data points (although comparisons aren't as convenient).
What is your stance on abortion?
Hillary Clinton’s answer: Pro-choice
Donald Trump’s answer: Pro-life, but allow in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother or child
Should illegal immigrants have access to government-subsidized healthcare?
Hillary Clinton’s answer: Yes, and grant them citizenship
Donald Trump’s answer: No
Should foreign terrorism suspects be given constitutional rights?
Hillary Clinton’s answer: Yes, give them a fair trial and shut down Guantanamo Bay
Donald Trump’s answer: No, they are not U.S. citizens and do not have constitutional rights
... and so forth.
So, let me ask you a few questions:
Do you think that foreign terrorism suspects should be given constitutional rights? Do you support the Affordable Care Act? Do you feel that police officers should be required to wear body cameras? Should prisons ban the use of solitary confinement for juveniles? Should convicted felons have the right to vote?
All of those questions have clear yes-or-no answers; in each case, Clinton has answered "yes" and Trump "no" or vice versa. It's hard for me to see how this difference is merely cosmetic and costuming.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Low turn-out is viewed as voter apathy. And yes, it is exactly what "they" want.
Wouldn't that just show them that they can buy the election by buying even fewer voters?So who did you want to win, Kirth?Ideally, I'd want such a low turnout that the election is considered null and void. Practically, I want such a low turnout that the big Democrat donors say, "Ya know, we should have backed Sanders; he would have been a slam-dunk instead of a barely-made-it. Let's think about that for next time." And the big Republican donors say, "Let's not back lunatic reality show hosts next time; it's a no-win deal."
To get candidates worth voting for, you need to convince the people with the money to donate to the right candidates. To do that, you have to show that the likes of the current batch are NOT competitive. To do that, you have to show that there are a LOT of voters -- an electable margin worth -- who will actually stay home rather than back your dog.
None of that has anything to do with 3rd party anything.
Hey, elections are ON SALE this cycle!
Ideally, I'd want such a low turnout that the election is considered null and void.
Okay, not realistic by any stretch, and not what I asked. Low turnout hits Democratic candidates first. Your "ideal" situation results in a Trump presidency.
Practically, I want such a low turnout that the big Democrat donors say, "Ya know, we should have backed Sanders; he would have been a slam-dunk instead of a barely-made-it. Let's think about that for next time."
Why would that be their takeaway? Why would they look at the result and think, "You know what? We need to bring a candidate to the table who is more extreme next time!"
And the big Republican donors say, "Let's not back lunatic reality show hosts next time; it's a no-win deal."
I mean, they'd have the Presidency, though. I doubt they'd be complaining at that point. Hell, they'd probably see Trump as a brilliant move, in hindsight! Bombastic, xenophobic, policy-free, easily-triggered candidates can win after all, they'll think. Who knew?
To get candidates worth voting for, you need to convince the people with the money to donate to the right candidates. To do that, you have to show that the likes of the current batch are NOT competitive.
Low turnout doesn't make the two major party candidates non-competitive. That's not how the world works.
It sounds like you're really just bitter and disappointed that Sanders didn't win. Which is fine. But you could have been up-front about that. And, even better, you could follow Sanders' lead and back Clinton. Sanders himself has an ounce of practicality in him that many of his most "faithful" supporters lack. But I guess you're just smarter and know more about how politics really works than he does.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
People seem to be misconstrue "Hillary is not as progressive as I want" with "Hillary and Trump are the same"
Even a casual glance at the candidates policies reveal that is not remotely true. On a personal level, a Trump presidency is likely to severly influence whether I have a job in the next year few years due to his stance on science. At a broader level Trump stands for a lot of things that are actively going to hurt large swath of Americans, including many posters here.
A Hillary presidency would likely, at worst, ensure the continuation of a lot of current obama policies and no worsening of the current state of affairs. At best it will greatly improve our country on multiple fronts.
Our best case with Trump is that he is so divisive and incompetant nothing gets done and he is a 4 year president, or less because of some scandal. At worst he actually gets his way and butchers social services and environmental regulation, creates multiple international incidents which cost American lives, and buries the country in massive debt from his stupid border wall and other unrealistic programs.
Maybe not everyone here will personally feel that effect, but a lot of other people are going to.
It sounds like you're really just bitter and disappointed that Sanders didn't win.
Nope; I used his name as an example, not as "my" candidate. Certainly he would have been more palatable to me on what I consider to be the big three key issues, but that's not saying much; Trump's and Clinton's views on those three are pretty much the same.
It sounds like you're really just bitter and disappointed that Sanders didn't win.Nope; I used his name as an example, not as "my" candidate. Certainly he would have been more palatable to me on what I consider to be the big three key issues, but that's not saying much; Trump's and Clinton's views on those three are pretty much the same.
So then I'll repeat the actual question I asked: who did you want to win?
That's one thing I don't really get. Sanders was the first candidate to put forth a platform addressing issues of BLM. He openly invited them to meetings, but somehow people criticize him for not reaching out African American community.
But he didn't. He comes across as someone who's "well meaning" but doesn't really get it. He did not really address the specific issues of blacks and law enforcement with any proposals, nor did he seem to understand the issues that black families have. He made a token appointment for a minority affairs liasion, but that appointment did not seem to result in any real change in his communication style.
On the other hand, the Clintons DO know how to talk to the black sector. Bill Clinton in fact, still has an office in Harlem. Man even played some mean sax. In contrast, when Sanders talks to black people it's like he's making First Contact with an alien species. Given where he comes from, it's not that surprising.
Well if she can't get single payer she's not going to get $12 dollars an hour either,Single payer, higher minimum wage, free collage and trade schools, and actually closing down tax loopholes so they're not bearing the brunt of the tax burden in the US. Right now governments are taxed strapped, making cuts, allowing infrastructure to crumble, if we could adequately fund policing for example they wouldn't be writing as many tickets to make up the budget shortfall.And I think it's ridiculous that Hilary isn't reaching out to these people with policies that would help them. The problem is Hilary is in the pockets of these big industry types and so while Trump isn't going to be the answer, Hilary isn't going to be the answer either. The difference I suppose is that under Trump things could get worse.What policies do you think can help them?
How do those compare with policies Clinton has actually proposed? Or Trump has actually proposed, for that matter.We've talked about single-payer, so your basic objection there appears to that she's not going to fight for something she can't win.
higher minimum wage
free college and trade schools
closing down tax loopholesOf course, you can claim those don't go far enough and you may well be right. You can claim she's not reaching out enough with them.
Apples and oranges. An established minimum wage is already a thing, so she's not going to have to rip down any established industries and rebuild an economy. As Churchill famously put it, "now we're just haggling over the price." Single payer would be a major restructuring of the insurance industry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you, personally, don't like the people we nominate doesn't mean that the elections are a sham. We have democratic elections between democratically-selected candidates. You just don't like the outcome.Dubya in a skirt or Dubya in a wig? Does the costume really mean anything at that point? I know you think there's a night-and-day difference between the two.You know, there's a difference between a "night-and-day difference" and the "no difference at all" you seem to see.
That's not just me. That's any rational observer. For example, insidegov.com rates the candidates on four major axes. Trump scores "moderately conservative" on individual rights, on domestic issues, and on economic issues. On defense and economic issues, he scores "slightly liberal."
By contrast, Clinton scores "moderately liberal" on individual rights, "very liberal" on domestic issues and economic issues, and "slightly liberal" (one point further left than Trump) on defense and economic issues.
Some examples of differences:
Clinton "strongly agrees" that abortion is a woman's unrestricted right; Trump "disagrees".
Clinton is comfortable with same-sex marriage; Trump is not.
Clinton strongly disagrees that EPA regulations are too restrictive; Trump strongly agrees that they are.
Clinton strongly disagrees with the existence of an absolute right to gun ownership; Trump strongly agrees with that concept.
Clinton strongly disagrees with vouchers for school choice; Trump strongly agrees.
Clinton strongly agrees to prioritize green energy; Trump strongly disagrees.
Clinton strongly agrees that government stimulus would be better than a market-led recovery; Trump strongly disagrees.
Clinton strongly agrees that there should be a path to citizen ship for illegal aliens, Trump strongly disagrees.
Clinton strongly disagrees with privatizing social...
It is worth noting that Clinton has changed positions on a fair number of these issues, LGBT, Keystone, and others after Sanders forced her to move leftward from her generally centrist-right stance. What a lot of people are lacking is faith that she'll hold to these positions once elected. Keep in mind that her approach to bankruptcy as First Lady was practically reversed as Senator. Their is precedent for this belief. After lining up the gay and progressive vote to get him to the White House, Obama spent much of his Presidency telling them to buzz off.
Her LGBT stance did change before Sanders, I believe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
After lining up the gay and progressive vote to get him to the White House, Obama spent much of his Presidency telling them to buzz off.
Have you spoken to any gay people about this? Because I have. And not a one of them believes that Obama has been anything but far and away the strongest ally we've ever had at the top of government.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Obama's done a lot to elevate trans issues to the public eye, as well. In a climate where even Sanders and Clinton barely talked about transgender people, Obama released a school briefer that's led to open rebellion from conservative states. Good on him!
They had the office? I didn't realize that the president was a joint office.
...I can look at what [the Clintons] actually did when they had the office for 8 years.
Well, Hillary not actually being elected did not stop her from pushing for The Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act, in 1993. "Her leading role in the project was unprecedented for a presidential spouse.[6][7] This unusual decision by the president to put his wife in charge of the project has been attributed to several factors, such as his desire to emphasize his personal commitment to the enterprise."
I should note that this is probably the best thing Hillary has done, and if she stayed at, she would be a far superior candidate today.
Alas, "She received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and insurance companies for her 2006 re-election in the Senate, including several insurance companies that were members of the Health Insurance Association of America that helped defeat the Clinton Health Plan in 1994.[14] Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, refers to his previous battles with Clinton as "ancient history," and says "she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue."[14]"
Given her statements about, "putting Bill in charge of the economy" and her ties to corporations and neoliberal organizations like the CFR, it is fairly obvious what her plans are. Oh yeah, there is also her time as a Senator from NY, and also Secretary of State, where she also pursued a neoliberal agenda.
EDIT: There is an excellent Frontline episode about the Clinton's push for a plan compared with Obama's. I highly recommend it.
So then I'll repeat the actual question I asked: who did you want to win?
And I'll repeat what I answered: this election? Not applicable. I'm worried about the next one now. I believe that how people vote in this election, and how many, actually matters in the next one. You do not. That's OK. Time will tell. Yelling at me will not.
And I'll repeat what I answered: this election? Not applicable.
I know you're worried about the next one now. Whatever that means. I want to know who you wanted to win this election. Presumably at some point in the past you thought this one mattered. Who did you want to win at that point?
(And this doesn't even touch on the absurdity of believing that the chief concern of the current election is the outcome of the next one.)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is worth noting that Clinton has changed positions on a fair number of these issues, LGBT, Keystone, and others after Sanders forced her to move leftward from her generally centrist-right stance. What a lot of people are lacking is faith that she'll hold to these positions once elected. Keep in mind that her approach to bankruptcy as First Lady was practically reversed as Senator. Their is precedent for this belief. After lining up the gay and progressive vote to get him to the White House, Obama spent much of his Presidency telling them to buzz off.
This is highly misleading. Obama supported same-sex marriage as early as 1996, and although he shifted away from sponsoring legislation in favor of actual marriage in the early 2002, has been a strong and continuous supporter of civil unions. He campaigned in 2008 on repealing DOMA and, although he was not able to accomplish that, he pointedly opted not to defend DOMA as constitutional in US. v. Windsor. Again, you need to look to the political context. Half a loaf is better than no bread, and civil unions are a lot better than outright denial, which was the other side of that particular debate. Gay marriage itself wasn't even a realistic possibility until a lot of groundwork had been laid; by 2012 Obama was actively campaigning for gay marriage and made some very influential decisions in the management of the relevant cases.
Hillary has taken a similarly pragmatic view; she's always been extremely liberal, but also realistic, in what should be done. In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the DOMA in an effort to stave off more serious attacks on the rights of the LGBT community by taking the wind out of their sails. Even at the time, the DOMA was regarded as a compromise because it did not actually prevent states from recognizing gay marriage, but passage of that bill would prove to be enough to shut down some of the more restrictive laws that were also proposed at the time. (Furthermore, the bill passed both chambers with a veto-proof majority, so Bill Clinton's hands were close to tied.)
But that's also Bill Clinton's decision, not Hillary's. Hillary was supporting civil unions throughout the 2000s, was trying to repeal DOMA in 2007, and had moved to full-throated support for gay marriage by 2013. Sanders didn't start his candidacy until April 2015.
Or, more tersely,..... No. None of what you said actually happened. You have bought into the media disinformation.
Well, Hillary not actually being elected did not stop her from pushing for The Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act, in 1993.They had the office? I didn't realize that the president was a joint office.
...I can look at what [the Clintons] actually did when they had the office for 8 years.
So? Your not being elected hasn't kept you from pushing for the Trump Cuckoo Bananas Yuge Armageddon that Mexico, of course, is going to pay for.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you actually looked at the difference between say... how Trump runs his charity versus how Clinton runs hers? Based on your statements, I would have to say no.
You've bought into complete falsehoods about Clinton, while ignoring verifiable facts about Trump.
I don't have to look at the Clinton Foundation to see how the Clintons do things, because I can look at what they actually did when they had the office for 8 years. NAFTA, globalization, lowered regulations on corporations and banking. The Clintons and neo liberalism go hand-and-hand. None of that is disputable.
I'm not ignoring anything about Trump. He is a lying scumbag who pays money to politicians. Hillary is a lying scumbag who gets money from
guys likeTrump. Trump AND Hillary are the problem. They are the yin and yang of crony capitalism, and if you reward either one with your vote, you should not be surprised when you get more crony capitalism.
I've really got to get this out of my system.
If you are opposed to globalization, you are in favor of a world with more war.
Globalization has been one of the greatest peace-making forces in the entirety of human history. To rail against the concept is astounding to me from a progressive standpoint. To oppose globalization is to be in favor of putting the working class at greater risk of dying in wars.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dubya in a skirt or Dubya in a wig? Does the costume really mean anything at that point? I know you think there's a night-and-day difference between the two. Not everyone agrees.Everyone whose opinion on politics I have more than a passing tolerance for does. I have absolutely zero patience for the fashionably cynical belief that the two major party nominees are interchangeable.
Yeah, there's a difference. At the absolute worst, there's crony capitalism with a humanitarian mask and there's crony capitalism backed by Stormfront and the KKK.The fact that you, personally, don't like the people we nominate doesn't mean that the elections are a sham. We have democratic elections between democratically-selected candidates. You just don't like the outcome.Dubya in a skirt or Dubya in a wig? Does the costume really mean anything at that point? I know you think there's a night-and-day difference between the two. Not everyone agrees. That's like saying Iran is a liberal democracy rather than a theocracy because Ahmadinejad was elected.
These two segments, taken together, do a pretty good job of isolating a problem I have with all this: crony capitalism, whether masked or championed, is the problem. (Let me qualify that for our in-house legalese specialists -- No, it's not the only problem, and it might not even be the biggest problem.)
In the end, thejeff has nailed this one -- crony capitalism it is!! --, and Scott Betts has acknowledged that he regards well opinions that match his own about the interchangeability of the two major candidates, but not others' differing opinions.
thejeff, Scott?? It's no wonder we can't agree on the matter.
Happy Politicking, All!
I'm not ignoring anything about Trump. He is a lying scumbag who pays money to politicians. Hillary is a lying scumbag who gets money fromguys likeTrump. Trump AND Hillary are the problem. They are the yin and yang of crony capitalism, and if you reward either one with your vote, you should not be surprised when you get more crony capitalism.So what is the solution?
...more...
Politics is selling your soul. The idea is to get the best price you can.
As I have mentioned in the past, my vote (our vote if you still live in NY?) has ZERO effect. I could get ten thousand of my friends to the polls for either candidate, and all NY states electoral votes are still going to the democrat.
I have three options:
1) Vote for Trump or Clinton, they get a statistically insignificant boost to their total votes, which has no effect in any way.
2) Vote for a third party candidate, or write in, who has a statistically insignificant chance of success. The entire system is stacked against a third party, but my vote shows that I acknowledge the legitimacy of the system by participating in it.
3) Not vote for a presidential candidate. People can attribute this to indifference, indecision, or whatever, but they can not say that I participated in the election.
[Option 4) Move to Florida or Ohio. No thanks.]
It seems that option three is about the only thing that is not a de facto endorsement of a system that has marginalized me.
Dubya in a skirt or Dubya in a wig? Does the costume really mean anything at that point? I know you think there's a night-and-day difference between the two. Not everyone agrees.Everyone whose opinion on politics I have more than a passing tolerance for does. I have absolutely zero patience for the fashionably cynical belief that the two major party nominees are interchangeable.Yeah, there's a difference. At the absolute worst, there's crony capitalism with a humanitarian mask and there's crony capitalism backed by Stormfront and the KKK.The fact that you, personally, don't like the people we nominate doesn't mean that the elections are a sham. We have democratic elections between democratically-selected candidates. You just don't like the outcome.Dubya in a skirt or Dubya in a wig? Does the costume really mean anything at that point? I know you think there's a night-and-day difference between the two. Not everyone agrees. That's like saying Iran is a liberal democracy rather than a theocracy because Ahmadinejad was elected.These two segments, taken together, do a pretty good job of isolating a problem I have with all this: crony capitalism, whether masked or championed, is the problem. (Let me qualify that for our in-house legalese specialists -- No, it's not the only problem, and it might not even be the biggest problem.)
In the end, thejeff has nailed this one -- crony capitalism it is!! --, and Scott Betts has acknowledged that he regards well opinions that match his own about the interchangeability of the two major candidates, but not others' differing opinions.
thejeff, Scott?? It's no wonder we can't agree on the matter.
Happy Politicking, All!
This is pretty intellectually dishonest of you, Syrus. Care to try that one again?
Your not being elected hasn't kept you from pushing for the Trump Cuckoo Bananas Yuge Armageddon that Mexico, of course, is going to pay for.
When have I advocated for Trump?
Also, if you are going to link to cheesy 80's pop songs, at least go for something funny!
I have three options:
1) Vote for Trump or Clinton, they get a statistically insignificant boost to their total votes, which has no effect in any way.
A nitpick, but the terms "statistically significant" and "statistically insignificant" no longer apply when you're discussing a full-population measure (like the election itself). They are terms used when populations are sampled (like in polls) to describe difference values within or beyond the margin of error (which full-population measures do not have).
2) Vote for a third party candidate, or write in, who has a statistically insignificant chance of success. The entire system is stacked against a third party, but my vote shows that I acknowledge the legitimacy of the system by participating in it.
You are making the classic mistake of believing that your vote has a message attached to it. It doesn't. Your vote doesn't look any different from any of the hundreds of thousands of other people casting similar votes, despite the huge array of reasons for people casting those votes.
3) Not vote for a presidential candidate. People can attribute this to indifference, indecision, or whatever, but they can not say that I participated in the election.
This isn't something to be proud of.
Option 4) Move to Florida or Ohio. No thanks.
Hey, no disagreement on that point.
It seems that option three is about the only thing that is not a de facto endorsement of a system that has marginalized me.
Just because your opinions are unpopular or because you refuse to engage in democratic compromise doesn't mean that the system itself has marginalized you.
Split 'em up, shuffle 'em around, try your best to keep the syntax straight, dude, whatever you like . . . .
You want me to reformat the post?
1) It's crony capitalism. Either way. For those who don't believe it exists, of course they wouldn't believe that. For those who don't have a problem with it, of course they wouldn't understand, nor agree with, anyone else's objections to it. For those of us who do see it as crony capitalism, there's no bridging the gap(s) from one (across another) to the other. And some of us are opposed to it (crony capitalism), period.
2) I can't put words in your mouth, man. You have demonstrated consistent disdain and disrespect toward others' opinions, clearly expressed. I have met religious fanatics whose attitudes have been more palatable to me than yours, so far as I have understood it.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So who did you want to win, Kirth?Ideally, I'd want such a low turnout that the election is considered null and void. Practically, I want such a low turnout that the big Democrat donors say, "Ya know, we should have backed Sanders; he would have been a slam-dunk instead of a barely-made-it. Let's think about that for next time." And the big Republican donors say, "Let's not back lunatic reality show hosts next time; it's a no-win deal."
Yeah speaking from a country that gets a lower and lower turnout thats not what happens what instead happens is they realise less and less people vote against them so they can get away with more and more stuff.
It seems that option three is about the only thing that is not a de facto endorsement of a system that has marginalized me.
I can't see why your endorsement matters. Your endorsement doesn't DO anything.
Voting for a third party is definitely a viable option in new york. One thing that occurs to me is that Hillary winning without the popular vote will make her presidency less effective, which would be bad.
Split 'em up, shuffle 'em around, try your best to keep the syntax straight, dude, whatever you like . . . .
You want me to reformat the post?
Reformat? No, I'd like for you to avoid misrepresenting what others have said to you. You didn't characterize either of our positions accurately.
1) It's crony capitalism. Either way. For those who don't believe it exists, of course they wouldn't believe that. For those who don't have a problem with it, of course they wouldn't understand, nor agree with, anyone else's objections to it. For those of us who do see it as crony capitalism, there's no bridging the gap(s) from one (across another) to the other. And some of us are opposed to it (crony capitalism), period.
Your attitude is incapable of addressing the problem, so what good is it?
2) I can't put words in your mouth, man. You have demonstrated consistent disdain and disrespect toward others' opinions, clearly expressed.
Certain opinions, yes. I am under no obligation whatsoever to afford all opinions equal respect. Contrary to what you may have been taught as a child, all opinions are not created equal.
I have met religious fanatics whose attitudes have been more palatable to me than yours, so far as I have understood it.
Cute.