|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I'm very mixed on the entire PC thing as I've been way too close to way too much of it. To me, it is basically a bastardization of the civil rights movement and is basically addressing a surface level problem without touching the fundamental, underlying ones. This is not to say that racial slurs and hate speech are wrong, but that simply controlling what people say isn't a very effective way to impact how they think and may in fact have the opposite effect.
This is a bit of a tangent, but one of my favorite books is Tigana by Guy Gavriel Kay. I'll try to avoid spoilers, but one big part of the story is that a wizard has set a spell that blocks all mention of a kingdom he has destroyed (Tigana). He's kept the spell in place so basically when the older generation dies then all traces of the kingdom will be gone because no one can ever hear/learn about it. When the spell breaks though all that censorship doesn't matter. IDK I thought it was kind of relevant.
|
Let me rephrase that for clarity since it is being analyzed so heavily.
What I mean is
I am not responsible for the choices that everyone else make, I am only responsible for the choice that I make.
|
On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are.
I would say you are extremely lucky to have the ability to abstain from the process and not worry about it substantively harming you or people you know. I am also not a member of any political party. I am not wild about Hilary and felt the DNC could have done better. But my fiancée and I have good friends who are Muslim and are terrified of Trump. I could never face them again if I decided to abstain from this election in protest.
Also, the last time I considered not voting with Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry. Both times I sat it out because I was busy with college and didn’t like my options. After that brother got deployed twice to useless wars that only made us both completely disillusioned with our country. I wouldn’t have turned the tide, but someone like me in Florida could have.
|
Trump isn't saying mexicans are all rapists or drug dealers. I don't know where that is coming from. Trump has nothing against mexicans coming over to this country legally. Every country, including america, has hordes of criminals and rapists. For whatever reason Mexico has a lot of criminals with a seriously flawed justice system.Typically, criminals want to flee from a country that they commited crimes in to escape justice. We certainly have citizens of the united states who do this all the time.
Now, as a competitve nation we want the best people that mexico has to offer to improve our nation which requires us to properly screen who comes into this country. Currently, alot of criminals are coming to our country that we're not screened and we have no idea who they are. In addition, they are coming from a country that has huge problems with drug cartels and sex trafficing. How many of these criminals coming over is debatable, but is in fact happening which i think is enough to do something about it.
You can't blame a country in a competitive world to seek quality people to come over to our country. People that come over through improper channels not only hurt americian citizens but also hurt potential legal immigrants who would contribute to our society. Those 30 million illegal immigrants could have been 30 million legal immigrants all with more education and technical skill. America is not and should not be a refugee camp.
It is unimaginable that people cannot discern the difference between illegality and legality..
|
Trump doesn't have sufficient knowledge about the issues and it shows re: Mexicans and elsewhere
He's tapped into something for sure but he's not the straight talking political newcomer/ savant some make him out to be
Also are you seriously insinuating people who come from Mexico are mostly criminals as opposed to economic migrants of one sort or another?
|
On May 11 2016 06:14 ticklishmusic wrote:
Trump doesn't have sufficient knowledge about the issues and it shows re: Mexicans and elsewhere
He's tapped into something for sure but he's not the straight talking political newcomer/ savant some make him out to be
Also are you seriously insinuating people who come from Mexico are mostly criminals as opposed to economic migrants of one sort or another?
Omg seriously? Where did i say mostly? I said mexico has a crime problem and when you do not have proper procedures to screen people coming in you will inevitably allow criminals to come through. I even said the amount is debatable. And again we were talking about illegal migrants, not mexican migrants as a whole. It's as if you think illegal= all mexicans. Jesus christ
|
On May 11 2016 05:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are. I would say you are extremely lucky to have the ability to abstain from the process and not worry about it substantively harming you or people you know. I am also not a member of any political party. I am not wild about Hilary and felt the DNC could have done better. But my fiancée and I have good friends who are Muslim and are terrified of Trump. I could never face them again if I decided to abstain from this election in protest. Also, the last time I considered not voting with Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry. Both times I sat it out because I was busy with college and didn’t like my options. After that brother got deployed twice to useless wars that only made us both completely disillusioned with our country. I wouldn’t have turned the tide, but someone like me in Florida could have.
yeah.. I do get what you are saying here. If I start to get the impression that trump really could have negative repercussions as extreme as what you are implying, I may consider that to have such a heavy weight that I'll vote for Hillary anyways, because the point you are making is legitimate. That's all I can really say about that - that if I vote it will be for more extreme practical reasons like this, and I definitely won't be happy about feeling like I need to do it.
|
On May 11 2016 05:59 SolaR- wrote:
Trump isn't saying mexicans are all rapists or drug dealers. I don't know where that is coming from. Trump has nothing against mexicans coming over to this country legally. Every country, including america, has hordes of criminals and rapists. For whatever reason Mexico has a lot of criminals with a seriously flawed justice system.Typically, criminals want to flee from a country that they commited crimes in to escape justice. We certainly have citizens of the united states who do this all the time.
Now, as a competitve nation we want the best people that mexico has to offer to improve our nation which requires us to properly screen who comes into this country. Currently, alot of criminals are coming to our country that we're not screened and we have no idea who they are. In addition, they are coming from a country that has huge problems with drug cartels and sex trafficing. How many of these criminals coming over is debatable, but is in fact happening which i think is enough to do something about it.
You can't blame a country in a competitive world to seek quality people to come over to our country. People that come over through improper channels not only hurt americian citizens but also hurt potential legal immigrants who would contribute to our society. Those 30 million illegal immigrants could have been 30 million legal immigrants all with more education and technical skill. America is not and should not be a refugee camp.
It is unimaginable that people cannot discern the difference between illegality and legality..
See, I just don't get this vibe from Trump's comments at all. They're so thoroughly distilled into easily clapped at sound bites that all nuance is lost, but people who DO loathe illegal immigrants indiscriminately can still think he agrees with him completely. And to me, that is a serious problem with how he presents himself. Enough reason not to vote for him (if his nonsensical, unimplementable policies didn't already accomplish that).
It's similar to how he either didn't read or ignored huge chunks of the poll of American Muslims he cited when he announced his "no Muslim immigration policy" in my mind.
|
On May 11 2016 05:38 zlefin wrote:
Which is why there should be a "none of the above" option, so people who don't support any of the candidates can express that.
Are there any studies which show what kind of long-term systemic effects and results occur when using different ethical principles to decide how one should vote?
People have certainly mentioned quite a few different ways here, and I've always wondered how well each one works out. Until I can come up with a more solid answer, I just let people vote based on whichever system they deem best.
There is, you go into the booth and leave that option blank, (which is also an option if you think both candidates are equally terrific)
And then you decide who you want to be your representative in Congress/Senator/Mayor/Dogcatcher.
Saying you think both candidates are really bad is an OK reason not to vote for that position.
Even better reason is if you think both candidates are almost equally terrible (ie people who can't decide if Hillary or Trump would be worse..which is a valid point of view for some of those members of either party wo voted in the primaries)
However, the only reason not to vote is if you think ALL the options presented to you that day are either
1) both terrible
OR
2) not something you know enough about which is more terrible
#2 is quite possible if you are not really politically engaged, as normal Americans really only know about the President, and Maybe their Governor..and a few of Other People's representatives in Congress.
|
On May 11 2016 05:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are. I would say you are extremely lucky to have the ability to abstain from the process and not worry about it substantively harming you or people you know. I am also not a member of any political party. I am not wild about Hilary and felt the DNC could have done better. But my fiancée and I have good friends who are Muslim and are terrified of Trump. I could never face them again if I decided to abstain from this election in protest. Also, the last time I considered not voting with Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry. Both times I sat it out because I was busy with college and didn’t like my options. After that brother got deployed twice to useless wars that only made us both completely disillusioned with our country. I wouldn’t have turned the tide, but someone like me in Florida could have.
I'm curious who your Muslim friends were supporting?
Anyway this whole vote shaming is silly. How many people trying to shame people into voting did anything to get the millions of people who don't vote (not just people who support your candidate), to engage in the primary process? If they are just coming in at the end to shame people for not voting against Trump, then it rings totally hollow to me.
|
On May 11 2016 06:25 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:56 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are. I would say you are extremely lucky to have the ability to abstain from the process and not worry about it substantively harming you or people you know. I am also not a member of any political party. I am not wild about Hilary and felt the DNC could have done better. But my fiancée and I have good friends who are Muslim and are terrified of Trump. I could never face them again if I decided to abstain from this election in protest. Also, the last time I considered not voting with Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry. Both times I sat it out because I was busy with college and didn’t like my options. After that brother got deployed twice to useless wars that only made us both completely disillusioned with our country. I wouldn’t have turned the tide, but someone like me in Florida could have. yeah.. I do get what you are saying here. If I start to get the impression that trump really could have negative repercussions as extreme as what you are implying, I may consider that to have such a heavy weight that I'll vote for Hillary anyways, because the point you are making is legitimate. That's all I can really say about that - that if I vote it will be for more extreme practical reasons like this, and I definitely won't be happy about feeling like I need to do it.
So for you, what happens, psychologically, when you consider the idea of voting for a 55 because it is better than a 50? What would you say compels you to say "Nope"? When you say you'd vote against Trump if it looked like some seriously grim shit was gonna take place, why is it only an issue when it is seriously grim? Why is it not enough to realize the impact it will have on food stamps, unemployment or other safety net benefits? Without getting into too much detail, I have been very directly impacted by decreasing foodstamps benefits over the course of my life. It really, really sucked. It wasn't a huge deal on a national scale, but I was very negatively, directly impacted when I was young. And while I do not mean to make myself into some shitty sap story, I think it is important to consider the fact that 300 million people live in our country. A negative shift in policy that only hurts 0.1% of our population still impacts 30000 people.
If I was to try to leave you with anything, it would be to please consider that even when things are "only a little worse", it translates into impacting many, many people who may not have the ability to endure a hit like that. When someone budgets exactly $300/month for their family's food, and suddenly they need $450, that $150 doesn't just magically appear. That $150 is felt, which may seem ridiculous to some people, but its true.
On May 11 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:56 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are. I would say you are extremely lucky to have the ability to abstain from the process and not worry about it substantively harming you or people you know. I am also not a member of any political party. I am not wild about Hilary and felt the DNC could have done better. But my fiancée and I have good friends who are Muslim and are terrified of Trump. I could never face them again if I decided to abstain from this election in protest. Also, the last time I considered not voting with Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry. Both times I sat it out because I was busy with college and didn’t like my options. After that brother got deployed twice to useless wars that only made us both completely disillusioned with our country. I wouldn’t have turned the tide, but someone like me in Florida could have. I'm curious who your Muslim friends were supporting? Anyway this whole vote shaming is silly. How many people trying to shame people into voting did anything to get the millions of people who don't vote (not just people who support your candidate), to engage in the primary process? If they are just coming in at the end to shame people for not voting against Trump, then it rings totally hollow to me.
I have been obnoxiously shaming people into voting my whole life. I firmly believe that anyone who does not contribute to democracy does not deserve the freedoms allowed by democracy. People fought hard and died for the ability to vote and have a democracy. Finding a way to be pessimistic, in our situation, when people throughout history were killed by the thousands defending democracy, is a tragedy.
|
On May 11 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:56 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are. I would say you are extremely lucky to have the ability to abstain from the process and not worry about it substantively harming you or people you know. I am also not a member of any political party. I am not wild about Hilary and felt the DNC could have done better. But my fiancée and I have good friends who are Muslim and are terrified of Trump. I could never face them again if I decided to abstain from this election in protest. Also, the last time I considered not voting with Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry. Both times I sat it out because I was busy with college and didn’t like my options. After that brother got deployed twice to useless wars that only made us both completely disillusioned with our country. I wouldn’t have turned the tide, but someone like me in Florida could have. I'm curious who your Muslim friends were supporting? Anyway this whole vote shaming is silly. How many people trying to shame people into voting did anything to get the millions of people who don't vote (not just people who support your candidate), to engage in the primary process? If they are just coming in at the end to shame people for not voting against Trump, then it rings totally hollow to me.
In this Democratic primary (or the Republican primary, for that matter) I can imagine a lot of reasonable reasons to believe all of the candidates in your party's primary are equally great or equally terrible but believe the other party's candidates don't fall in the same place.
From a purely selfish perspective, if I was equally happy with a Sanders or Clinton nomination, why would I spend energy try to engage people in the primary process? And why would that force me to be equally happy with a Trump and Clinton presidency?
This kind of perspective (broadened to close friends in some cases) is more what people are looking at when "vote shaming" I think.
|
WASHINGTON — Top Republican strategists this past week have stepped up a frantic effort to lay the groundwork for a third-party presidential run, even as elected officials within the party begin to make their peace with Donald Trump.
The effort is admittedly a long shot, according to aides directly involved in it. But they insist it’s not as impossible as some members of the GOP and the press perceive it to be. In particular, these aides have begun exploring the idea of suing states over their deadlines for ballot access so they can be afforded more time to field a candidate and gather signatures. Additionally, they are discussing the possibility of launching an entirely new political party rather than latching onto an existing one, since doing so would provide easier passageways for getting on the ballot.
“The ballot deadlines are doable, avoidable or hackable,” said Rick Wilson, a longtime Republican operative who has turned his Twitter feed into a loathe-fest of Donald Trump.
“This is real. There is an actual pathway here,” he said. “I think we will know in the next week to 10 days [if this can work], and I think the probability is higher than most people think.”
Talk of a third-party run has been percolating for weeks, if not months — the volume of it directly correlated to the likelihood of a Trump victory — with the idea being that such a bid could deny both Trump and Hillary Clinton the 270 electoral college votes needed to win (a real long shot) and/or bring Republican voters disaffected by Trump’s candidacy out to the polls (more feasible). But it’s always been tempered by real-world restrictions.
The deadline to appear on the ballot in Texas passed just this Monday, meaning the Lone Star State’s 38 electoral votes are likely out of the picture, absent a successful lawsuit. In addition, between today and the end of June, at least three other states — Illinois, Indiana and North Carolina — have deadlines, accounting for an additional 34 electoral votes (North Carolina’s deadline being the soonest). After June, a third-party candidate would face more and more deadlines for appearing on the ballot — a task made more difficult due to the patchwork of complex rules and regulations concerning ballot access across the country.
Source
|
On May 11 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:56 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are. I would say you are extremely lucky to have the ability to abstain from the process and not worry about it substantively harming you or people you know. I am also not a member of any political party. I am not wild about Hilary and felt the DNC could have done better. But my fiancée and I have good friends who are Muslim and are terrified of Trump. I could never face them again if I decided to abstain from this election in protest. Also, the last time I considered not voting with Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry. Both times I sat it out because I was busy with college and didn’t like my options. After that brother got deployed twice to useless wars that only made us both completely disillusioned with our country. I wouldn’t have turned the tide, but someone like me in Florida could have. I'm curious who your Muslim friends were supporting? Anyway this whole vote shaming is silly. How many people trying to shame people into voting did anything to get the millions of people who don't vote (not just people who support your candidate), to engage in the primary process? If they are just coming in at the end to shame people for not voting against Trump, then it rings totally hollow to me.
They can’t vote, they are not citizens yet. Both are here on green cards. But they would vote for Hilary or Sanders. And "vote shaming" is a pretty garbage argument, since these elections have real effects on peoples lives.
|
On May 11 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:56 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are. I would say you are extremely lucky to have the ability to abstain from the process and not worry about it substantively harming you or people you know. I am also not a member of any political party. I am not wild about Hilary and felt the DNC could have done better. But my fiancée and I have good friends who are Muslim and are terrified of Trump. I could never face them again if I decided to abstain from this election in protest. Also, the last time I considered not voting with Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry. Both times I sat it out because I was busy with college and didn’t like my options. After that brother got deployed twice to useless wars that only made us both completely disillusioned with our country. I wouldn’t have turned the tide, but someone like me in Florida could have. I'm curious who your Muslim friends were supporting? Anyway this whole vote shaming is silly. How many people trying to shame people into voting did anything to get the millions of people who don't vote (not just people who support your candidate), to engage in the primary process? If they are just coming in at the end to shame people for not voting against Trump, then it rings totally hollow to me.
It seems transparently self-serving. Voting isn't a facade we go through just to justify perpetuating the power of a ruling class. If people don't like their options or what they end up with, someone different should be able to come in and win the votes of those who abstain by actually being better.
|
On May 11 2016 05:26 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:21 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 05:09 Mohdoo wrote:On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something? A material benefit is something that you can hold, touch or otherwise physically appreciate. The warm fuzzy feeling of knowing you didn't vote for someone you dislike is not a material benefit. You sound whiny because you are making it clear that you are withholding your vote unless you are properly catered to. You come across as inflexible and illogical. You are essentially dismissing the idea of a lesser of two evils, which is even more silly. I know what a material benefit is. I didn't say material benefit, because I don't actually need a material benefit in order to do things. Ok yes, I am withholding my vote unless I am "properly catered to". What a strange way to put it. Well, I know why you put it that way, because you are trying to make it sound bad. Guess what, I DON'T WANT TO SHOW MY SUPPORT FOR SOMEONE I DON'T BELIEVE IN. I'm not even convinced Hillary is a better candidate than trump! Honestly, this shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Do I think there is any interesting philosophical debate to be had about this? Yes, I think there are strong arguments on each side, I said earlier i think this can lead to an interesting philosophical discussion. But it's definitely not one I want to have with you.
And when you then go on to say that you won't vote for the lesser of two evils, you show yourself to be emotionally volatile and an unreliable vote. You are not the sort of person either political party worries about catering to because, as you are pointing out, you are just sitting this election out. You won't vote either way, so who cares about what you think? There's no reason to represent the views of someone who isn't going to vote.
okay, so they won't pander to me - that's fantastic, what the heck is your point.
I don't know how old you are, but you have shown a lot of characteristics of someone probably 25-35, which is the younger block that tends to lack representation. I would be surprised if you were older than 35. Regardless of your age, your commitment to the idea of not voting for the lesser of two evils already puts you in the "illogical and unreliable" bin to political strategists. Young people's tendency to give up on politics when their dog in the race loses is a really big deal. Young people need to feel like they have momentum on their side because they don't appreciate the time it takes for real change to happen. When it looks like the kind of thing that will take real commitment, they yell oligarchy and go back to business as usual.
I don't give a fuck about political strategists, and as I said already, Bernie losing has nothing to do with me not voting for the other candidates. Young liberals not voting because they don't have someone extreme enough is the whole reason the GOP has been able to do what it does. It is directly the fault of that voting block why things are as bad as they are in the US. And its a self perpetuating cycle. Candidates not extreme enough? Don't vote, other side wins, country gets more conservative, voting block votes even less, conservatives win even more elections, and suddenly the youth vote keeps complaining about how awful this thing they created is without any desire to take responsibility for it. Not voting is literally destroying the liberals of this country. EDIT Just saw your edit up there, would like to answer it. Voting is 0% about having someone who represents you and is 100% about building a team of people who can best represent and push your agendas. To do that you need a combination of idealists, pragmatists, charismatic types, etc... You need a local government that will actually implement the programs, a state government who will actually fun the programs, a house/senate who will actually fight for the programs, and a president to veto the bad programs. You wanting to feel catered to, you wanting someone who is as similar to you--that's a mirage. Its bullshit the GOP sells its people that makes you end with presidents like George Bush just because he had the same ideals as the majority at the time. Voting is not about electing a hero, its about electing a team.
I dont think its fair to say its a left only issue. To suggest so you would have to accept that right is much more rational and calculating about their vote than left, which is a pretty giant leap.
There is a random piece by bill james of baseball fame of all people compare curent gop to old dem alliance between northern liberal and southern people who cannot accept the mention of rep post civil war, even after dem passes rep on the left. This resulted dem controlling local elections but were miserable nationally. This is quite similar to current rep alliance between tea party and establishment, strong locally but disastrous nationally due to conflict of ideal. Eventually the dem alliance broke after civil right act, and same situation might be happening to gop now.
|
On May 11 2016 06:46 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:26 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 11 2016 05:21 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 05:09 Mohdoo wrote:On May 11 2016 04:18 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 01:30 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:On May 10 2016 23:18 LemOn wrote:
And I'm wondering to Bernie supporters here - will you get up and vote for Hillary in the general election?
I really hope you won't be bitter and her beating Bernie won't stop you from helping Trump lose. I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else. Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to. There is no material benefit to your "logic". If someone offers you the ability to be stabbed in the foot instead of the heart, the foot always makes sense. You just sound whiny. There's no candidate you feel great about voting for, so you just sit out. The lesser of two evils is always logical. You are a glowing example of why young people are not catered to. You give up and walk away from the political process when you encounter difficulty. Material benefit? The benefit is that I am not supporting something I don't believe in. I don't know how I could sound "whiny" when all I did was give a pretty short and direct reply to a question that was asked of me. Also, do you know how old I am or something? A material benefit is something that you can hold, touch or otherwise physically appreciate. The warm fuzzy feeling of knowing you didn't vote for someone you dislike is not a material benefit. You sound whiny because you are making it clear that you are withholding your vote unless you are properly catered to. You come across as inflexible and illogical. You are essentially dismissing the idea of a lesser of two evils, which is even more silly. I know what a material benefit is. I didn't say material benefit, because I don't actually need a material benefit in order to do things. Ok yes, I am withholding my vote unless I am "properly catered to". What a strange way to put it. Well, I know why you put it that way, because you are trying to make it sound bad. Guess what, I DON'T WANT TO SHOW MY SUPPORT FOR SOMEONE I DON'T BELIEVE IN. I'm not even convinced Hillary is a better candidate than trump! Honestly, this shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Do I think there is any interesting philosophical debate to be had about this? Yes, I think there are strong arguments on each side, I said earlier i think this can lead to an interesting philosophical discussion. But it's definitely not one I want to have with you.
And when you then go on to say that you won't vote for the lesser of two evils, you show yourself to be emotionally volatile and an unreliable vote. You are not the sort of person either political party worries about catering to because, as you are pointing out, you are just sitting this election out. You won't vote either way, so who cares about what you think? There's no reason to represent the views of someone who isn't going to vote.
okay, so they won't pander to me - that's fantastic, what the heck is your point.
I don't know how old you are, but you have shown a lot of characteristics of someone probably 25-35, which is the younger block that tends to lack representation. I would be surprised if you were older than 35. Regardless of your age, your commitment to the idea of not voting for the lesser of two evils already puts you in the "illogical and unreliable" bin to political strategists. Young people's tendency to give up on politics when their dog in the race loses is a really big deal. Young people need to feel like they have momentum on their side because they don't appreciate the time it takes for real change to happen. When it looks like the kind of thing that will take real commitment, they yell oligarchy and go back to business as usual.
I don't give a fuck about political strategists, and as I said already, Bernie losing has nothing to do with me not voting for the other candidates. Young liberals not voting because they don't have someone extreme enough is the whole reason the GOP has been able to do what it does. It is directly the fault of that voting block why things are as bad as they are in the US. And its a self perpetuating cycle. Candidates not extreme enough? Don't vote, other side wins, country gets more conservative, voting block votes even less, conservatives win even more elections, and suddenly the youth vote keeps complaining about how awful this thing they created is without any desire to take responsibility for it. Not voting is literally destroying the liberals of this country. EDIT Just saw your edit up there, would like to answer it. Voting is 0% about having someone who represents you and is 100% about building a team of people who can best represent and push your agendas. To do that you need a combination of idealists, pragmatists, charismatic types, etc... You need a local government that will actually implement the programs, a state government who will actually fun the programs, a house/senate who will actually fight for the programs, and a president to veto the bad programs. You wanting to feel catered to, you wanting someone who is as similar to you--that's a mirage. Its bullshit the GOP sells its people that makes you end with presidents like George Bush just because he had the same ideals as the majority at the time. Voting is not about electing a hero, its about electing a team. I dont think its fair to say its a left only issue. To suggest so you would have to accept that right is much more rational and calculating about their vote than left, which is a pretty giant leap. There is a random piece by bill james of baseball fame of all people compare curent gop to old dem alliance between northern liberal and southern people who cannot accept the mention of rep post civil war, even after dem passes rep on the left. This resulted dem controlling local elections but were miserable nationally. This is quite similar to current rep alliance between tea party and establishment, strong locally but disastrous nationally due to conflict of ideal. Eventually the dem alliance broke after civil right act, and same situation might be happening to gop now.
Religious groups are significantly more prone to "us vs them" thinking and congregation. Churches are an extremely uniting force. Romney won with evangelicals, right? Without trying to get too offensive, let's be real as to what mormonism is to evangelicals. Romney was basically a heathen. But was he a Muslim? They'll take a bastardized Christian over a black Muslim any day of the week. Compare that to the left. $12.50 minimum wage? Fucking shill, $15 or bust. Only increasing the minimum wage by 70% is corporate bullshit.
|
I don't think Religious groups are any more prone to binary thinking than other communities or groups. There is plenty of that to go around, especially on the internet.
|
On May 11 2016 06:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2016 05:56 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are. I would say you are extremely lucky to have the ability to abstain from the process and not worry about it substantively harming you or people you know. I am also not a member of any political party. I am not wild about Hilary and felt the DNC could have done better. But my fiancée and I have good friends who are Muslim and are terrified of Trump. I could never face them again if I decided to abstain from this election in protest. Also, the last time I considered not voting with Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry. Both times I sat it out because I was busy with college and didn’t like my options. After that brother got deployed twice to useless wars that only made us both completely disillusioned with our country. I wouldn’t have turned the tide, but someone like me in Florida could have. I'm curious who your Muslim friends were supporting? Anyway this whole vote shaming is silly. How many people trying to shame people into voting did anything to get the millions of people who don't vote (not just people who support your candidate), to engage in the primary process? If they are just coming in at the end to shame people for not voting against Trump, then it rings totally hollow to me. In this Democratic primary (or the Republican primary, for that matter) I can imagine a lot of reasonable reasons to believe all of the candidates in your party's primary are equally great or equally terrible but believe the other party's candidates don't fall in the same place. From a purely selfish perspective, if I was equally happy with a Sanders or Clinton nomination, why would I spend energy try to engage people in the primary process? And why would that force me to be equally happy with a Trump and Clinton presidency? This kind of perspective (broadened to close friends in some cases) is more what people are looking at when "vote shaming" I think.
It's not about "being equally happy". If you only want people to participate when it benefits you, then you don't get to use civic responsibility to shame people into voting when it helps you is basically my point.
If the long lines, voter registration changes, lacking equipment/staff, etc... only raises red flags for you when the other side does it then you don't get to pretend your intentions are pure.
People are shamelessly trying to make a pathos argument under the cover of the logic that any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump and it's completely disingenuous.
+ Show Spoiler +(using "you" in the generic like "one")
On May 11 2016 06:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 11 2016 05:56 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2016 05:39 travis wrote:On May 11 2016 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The purpose of voting is to pick who you think will best serve your interests and maybe others as well. Claiming that they must 100% meet all your standards to earn your vote is totally valid, but you won’t be voting a lot. Because they are not elected by you along and the candidates often have to listen to people that even they don’t agree with.
And this, right here, along with the DNC being terrible in the mid terms, is how the GOP has taken over down ballot races, Travis. By not voting at all, you’re helping the GOP win the entire ballot in your state. Well, they don't really need to 100% meet all my standards... but that's beside the point. No one said I supported the democratic party. Actually, I specifically don't support either party, and believe that the system is completely fucked. It's my belief that if the republicans garner enough support from voting citizens that they get elected, then so be it. That's not on me (despite people trying to argue it is). I understand the argument of "but your vote could have stopped it!". But I think it's a flawed argument. There's plenty of things that I could change in the world by taking some sort of action - that does not mean I have an inherent obligation to do so, *especially* when doing so conflicts with my beliefs. I am not responsible for everyone else, I am only responsible for me. That's my belief, and if people disagree with it, then fine - but I would warn some people to stop being so fucking cocky because maybe they aren't quite as clever as they think they are. I would say you are extremely lucky to have the ability to abstain from the process and not worry about it substantively harming you or people you know. I am also not a member of any political party. I am not wild about Hilary and felt the DNC could have done better. But my fiancée and I have good friends who are Muslim and are terrified of Trump. I could never face them again if I decided to abstain from this election in protest. Also, the last time I considered not voting with Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry. Both times I sat it out because I was busy with college and didn’t like my options. After that brother got deployed twice to useless wars that only made us both completely disillusioned with our country. I wouldn’t have turned the tide, but someone like me in Florida could have. I'm curious who your Muslim friends were supporting? Anyway this whole vote shaming is silly. How many people trying to shame people into voting did anything to get the millions of people who don't vote (not just people who support your candidate), to engage in the primary process? If they are just coming in at the end to shame people for not voting against Trump, then it rings totally hollow to me. It seems transparently self-serving. Voting isn't a facade we go through just to justify perpetuating the power of a ruling class. If people don't like their options or what they end up with, someone different should be able to come in and win the votes of those who abstain by actually being better.
Yeah, the parties have done a lot to limit the influence folks from outside can have on who's on the ballot in Nov, but Trump pushed past it. Trump had the luxury of Republicans not having a figure like Hillary for the establishment to consolidate around. Which was their downfall, as I predicted, before the race really started.
|
If you want to sit out the election, that is your decision. But don't expect people to be pumped about it or agree with you, just like you give people shit for supporting Hilary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
