|
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. |
Russia’s relations with the EU and US have been degrading for a long time under Putin, while their propaganda has become pronounced. I don’t know if folks forgot, but when they invaded Ukraine, they denied they were doing it the entire time or providing any support. There was video of Russian military vehicles driving over the border and troops in the country, but Russia claimed they were not involved.
Taking anything they say at face value is foolish and their claims that the EU is poisoning the well comical, like they are being forced into hacking one of our political parties.
|
On October 13 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. On October 13 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:16 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:
[quote]
I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.
I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. - Wikileaks - DNC Chairwomen comments - Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter) - Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats - Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time - Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders - Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up. - Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales - Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies - Voting places taken away - Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear - Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change - Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght. You may be a Clinton supporter (which is your own freedom of choice) but to blatantly ignore shit like this? Establishment taking away our basic democracy and voting power? Basically you'd rather support your candidate rather than uphold very basic values of democracy. Good job. Hi, Just so you know. The DNC's internal contest to see who they nominate as their official candidate is not a part of the actual election as defined by the constitution etc. None of that needs to happen. The DNC have as much right to pick whoever the fuck they feel like as Coca Cola do to change the flavour of coke. You seem to be very upset about the DNC having a preference for Hillary over Bernie but none of that is fraud, they don't owe anyone anything. Electoral fraud can only happen in the actual elections for the office. Primaries aren't a part of that. Thanks. Maybe not election fraud, but it's still fraud. The defense that Bernie's supporters knew it was rigged isn't a very good one either. What kind of fraud was it? Which part was fraudulent?
Why would you invite the reddit, twitter, social media conspiracy theories back into this thread?
|
On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process.
5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates.
On October 13 2016 01:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:41 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. On October 13 2016 01:28 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:16 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 23:07 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Trump is a threat to the democratic process with his completely unfounded claims of rigged elections. There is zero creditable evidence of massive voter fraud in the US. And I’m going to stop posting because you need a safe space for your conspiracy theories about the press being for Hilary. Trump ended this race with a lot of baggage that many of his supporters were willing to ignore. His electability has always been questionable at best. - Wikileaks - DNC Chairwomen comments - Reports DNC favored Hillary long before any votes were cast (thereby breaking its own charter) - Politico's report revealing DNC's joint committee was laundering money into Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats - Major news media blatant approval of Clinton while ignoring Sanders big time - Las Vegas event where even Hillary supporters were protesting the unfair treatment of Sanders - Las Vegas "chairs thrown" story made up, and after it gained all the attention, the real story about how they "got it wrong, no actual chairs were thrown, we're sorry" story that never received any attention came up. - Clintons violating election law, appearing in Massachusetts voting polls to tip the delicate scales - Election fraud voting machine tamperment if you look at final vote results & exit poll discrepencies - Voting places taken away - Sanders losing estimated 2,000 - 5,000 votes due to "glitches in the system" in Kentucky / Pike County votes disappear - Super long lines helping the candidate that receive much more percentage of votes in absentee voting (aka Clinton), day before voting, poll locations change - Some voting machine in Pennsylvania not allowing Bernie as a voting choice The list is huge. I didn't even mention the shit that happened in NY, CA, FL, etc. Should I keep going? "Zero credible evidence" Riggggght. You may be a Clinton supporter (which is your own freedom of choice) but to blatantly ignore shit like this? Establishment taking away our basic democracy and voting power? Basically you'd rather support your candidate rather than uphold very basic values of democracy. Good job. Hi, Just so you know. The DNC's internal contest to see who they nominate as their official candidate is not a part of the actual election as defined by the constitution etc. None of that needs to happen. The DNC have as much right to pick whoever the fuck they feel like as Coca Cola do to change the flavour of coke. You seem to be very upset about the DNC having a preference for Hillary over Bernie but none of that is fraud, they don't owe anyone anything. Electoral fraud can only happen in the actual elections for the office. Primaries aren't a part of that. Thanks. Maybe not election fraud, but it's still fraud. The defense that Bernie's supporters knew it was rigged isn't a very good one either. What kind of fraud was it? Which part was fraudulent? Why would you invite the reddit, twitter, social media conspiracy theories back into this thread?
You mean the court case?
|
GH, use your words. Don’t make people guess what you are referencing. If you have a proof of fraud, bring it or stop claiming it took place.
|
United States43468 Posts
On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates.
If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list.
The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
|
On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them.
This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't.
That worked well with Nader. Clearly 8 years of W over Gore were really great to further the causes he was defending, and look at the Green Party now, it is doing fantastically! :-)
|
On October 13 2016 01:48 Plansix wrote:
GH, use your words. Don’t make people guess what you are referencing. If you have a proof of fraud, bring it or stop claiming it took place.
Take a look for yourself. http://jampac.us/DNCLawsuit/
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
So long as people are succumbing to that reasoning you're right. Like many changes in our past, it's going to take a bunch of stubborn assholes like myself refusing to fall into line with folks like yourself to brow beat you all into having a spine.
|
The Republican party’s descent into civil war has revived Democratic hopes of an improbable treble by winning the presidency, House and Senate, allowing Hillary Clinton to pursue an aggressive agenda without the obstacles that have faced Barack Obama.
With Donald Trump’s campaign at risk of imploding, there are growing signs that both parties are focusing on the battle for Congress, where Republicans have everything to lose and could find Trump dragging them underwater like a drowning man.
Trump’s apparent declaration of war against the House speaker, Paul Ryan, and the Republican establishment on Tuesday will have done little to soothe nerves. Republican members of Congress seeking re-election now face the perilous choice of whether to risk alienating moderates or angering Trump diehards. Some are evidently trying to have their cake and eat it.
The Senate consists of 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats and two independents, both of whom caucus with the Democrats. The House breaks down as 246 Republicans and 186 Democrats with three vacancies.
This year was always going to be an uphill battle for Republicans in hoping to retain the Senate. Democrats are defending just 10 seats while the GOP has to hold on to 24. Democrats also tend to do better in a presidential election year with higher turnout.
If Clinton wins the White House, Democrats need to take only four seats to gain control because the vice-president has the casting vote in the event of a tie. But key Senate races, which include presidential battlegrounds such as New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada, have remained competitive.
The House also seemed to be safe in Republican hands, due in significant part to the gerrymandering that has made districts more partisan. Despite Democrats’ best efforts to cast their opponents as the “Party of Trump”, few signs have pointed to the brash real estate mogul being as deadly to down-ballot candidates as they once feared.
But last Friday’s release of an 11-year-old video in which Trump boasted about sexual assault have again shaken the party to its core. As his poll numbers plunge, there are fears that independent and even some Republican voters will turn against the party, or at least stay at home on election day, potentially handing Democrats a crucial advantage. Suddenly the Senate looks in grave jeopardy and even the House could be in play again.
Voters support Democrats over Republicans for Congress by seven percentage points, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken after the release of the tape but before Sunday night’s presidential debate.
Source
|
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:
The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns.
None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged.
Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
|
On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list.
No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process.
|
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:
The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns. None of this matters to GH because his fundamental assumption is that Hillary is a snake that will back out of everything she's pledged. Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
It's preposterous to say 2020 is some self-interested correcting mechanism. She's going to run the same campaign in 2020 as she's running now. "I'm not the Republican option" and no matter how bad she is, the same "well there's 2 choices and she's the less terrible one" will hold true.
|
On October 13 2016 01:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:48 Plansix wrote:
GH, use your words. Don’t make people guess what you are referencing. If you have a proof of fraud, bring it or stop claiming it took place. Take a look for yourself. http://jampac.us/DNCLawsuit/
That is a civil action filed with the court that has not been resolved and is currently facing a motion to dismiss. It hasn’t even progressed to discovery at this point. That isn’t proof of anything.
Edit: All democrats run on the "I'm not a Republican" aspect of their platform...
|
On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:
No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up to fix the democratic process.
The problem is that "standing up for the democratic process" by nonparticipation has the opposite effect of what you want.
If the parties perceive you to be an ideologue who won't be swayed, they stop giving a shit about what you think. That means you progressively get LESS of what you want, not more.
In order for people's interests to be catered to by the parties, the parties have to feel like they have to actually cater to those interests in order to get your vote. If you won't vote for them anyway, they won't care. If you'll vote for them either way, they also won't care.
The system doesn't work right now because the Republican party is completely dysfunctional, so the Democrats can get away with a lot of bullshit when they know so many people won't vote for the Republicans regardless. The system only works when parties feel pressured by the fact that people *could* vote for the other side.
|
Telling people to stand up to fix the democratic process while also indicting their supposed lack of courage is awfully easy when it comes from afar.
|
On October 13 2016 01:54 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:
The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns. Never mind the fact that even if she's purely selfishly looking out for her own self-interest, working toward some of these are in her self-interest because they buy her good will for the 2020 election. She can't just piss off everyone for her own selfish interest if she wants a second term.
There's no theoretical reason why what you said is necessary though. All she has to do is say she's doing the best she can and blame the idealism of people who think she could do more. Then Plansix comes in the thread and we're all set.
|
On October 13 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:48 Plansix wrote:
GH, use your words. Don’t make people guess what you are referencing. If you have a proof of fraud, bring it or stop claiming it took place. Take a look for yourself. http://jampac.us/DNCLawsuit/ That is a civil action filed with the court that has not been resolved and is currently facing a motion to dismiss. It hasn’t even progressed to discovery at this point. That isn’t proof of anything.
On what grounds did they file a motion to dismiss?
On October 13 2016 01:59 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:
No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up to fix the democratic process.
The problem is that "standing up for the democratic process" by nonparticipation has the opposite effect of what you want. If the parties perceive you to be an ideologue who won't be swayed, they stop giving a shit about what you think. That means you progressively get LESS of what you want, not more. In order for people's interests to be catered to by the parties, the parties have to feel like they have to actually cater to those interests in order to get your vote. If you won't vote for them anyway, they won't care. If you'll vote for them either way, they also won't care.
I don't understand how people reconcile this with the actual history of the United States?
|
United States43468 Posts
On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process.
Taking a risk? For what? He told me the result of taking a risk. The third party candidate isn't viable. Even if I vote for them. Why the hell would I pick that hill to die on? There are better options later on.
|
On October 13 2016 01:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:48 Plansix wrote:
GH, use your words. Don’t make people guess what you are referencing. If you have a proof of fraud, bring it or stop claiming it took place. Take a look for yourself. http://jampac.us/DNCLawsuit/Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:42 KwarK wrote:
a_flayer, voting isn't that simple. It depends on the way the game is set up. There are different voting systems. In some systems it's as simple as voting for your favourite and that'll get the optimal outcome. In constituency based simple plurality, which is what is being used here, voting is tactical. I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. The primary process brought Clinton left, she's adopted a lot of BLM issues as her own, she's pledged to increase the minimum wage, she's promised increased taxes on the 1%, you got what you could. You didn't get everything you wanted but a voter who demands everything they want from a candidate before they vote for them is a voter no candidate is interested in trying to win. As I keep saying, your symbolic disenfranchisement of yourself isn't going to fill Clinton or Trump with regret, neither are going "if only I'd done everything GH wanted, I'd have won one more vote". They'll just group you with the rest of the Greens voters and label the box "not worth appealing to, ignore their concerns. So long as people are succumbing to that reasoning you're right. Like many changes in our past, it's going to take a bunch of stubborn assholes like myself refusing to fall into line with folks like yourself to brow beat you all into having a spine.
September 21, 2016 47
47-1 Proposed Order on Motion to Dismiss
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Having considered the papers submitted
by the parties to the Court, as well as any argument on the same, the Court hereby GRANTS the
motion and dismisses this matter for lack of Article III standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/48-D.E.-48-Prop-Ord-on-MTD-9-21-16.pdf
If you want to cite garbage lawsuits, make sure they didn't just get dismissed in the second to last document.
|
On October 13 2016 01:59 farvacola wrote:
Telling people to stand up to fix the democratic process while also indicting their supposed lack of courage is awfully easy when it comes from afar.
In the hypothetical scenario that was presented, I can guarantee you I would not vote for either of the fascists.
|
On October 13 2016 01:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:58 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 01:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:48 Plansix wrote:
GH, use your words. Don’t make people guess what you are referencing. If you have a proof of fraud, bring it or stop claiming it took place. Take a look for yourself. http://jampac.us/DNCLawsuit/ That is a civil action filed with the court that has not been resolved and is currently facing a motion to dismiss. It hasn’t even progressed to discovery at this point. That isn’t proof of anything. On what grounds did they file a motion to dismiss? Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 01:59 TheYango wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:
No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up to fix the democratic process.
The problem is that "standing up for the democratic process" by nonparticipation has the opposite effect of what you want. If the parties perceive you to be an ideologue who won't be swayed, they stop giving a shit about what you think. That means you progressively get LESS of what you want, not more. In order for people's interests to be catered to by the parties, the parties have to feel like they have to actually cater to those interests in order to get your vote. If you won't vote for them anyway, they won't care. If you'll vote for them either way, they also won't care. I don't understand how people reconcile this with the actual history of the United States?
It is there in the link, you are free to read it for yourself. Its normal stuff, failure to state a claim on which relief can be grained, lack of standing, misuse of class action status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
