|
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. |
On May 16 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:
Voting no one is akin to voting for apathy and not a good move. I did that once, never again. You just get written off as "one of those people who don't vote" and it makes no statement of anything other than just a wee tick down on the "voter turnout" percentage.
I don't think so. The only practical difference of course is that with one you indicate your actual willingness to go and vote and with the other you don't. With one you show complete apathy, with the other you show apathy for the candidates but enthusiasm for democracy and for someone else besides the possible candidates to run.
Imagine if more people voted blank than voted for the winning candidate. That would obviously tell a different story than if all the blank votes had just stayed at home. I think it's even more so in USA where voting is not that straight forward and you have to register and pay a fee and take a day off and stand in a huge line and things like that to vote.
|
On May 16 2017 04:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 04:49 NewSunshine wrote:
Our choice in 2016 was awful, make no mistake, and that can be pinned on no other candidate managing to beat them to the election, for whatever the cause may be. The fact that Trump might be the less shitty of two thoroughly shitty options, and you can't even know that for sure, doesn't excuse him of accountability. The man is an ape who believes absolutely everything people tell him, and he finds himself in a government that cares far more about party lines than actually making progress.
That Hillary was also a bad choice does not give you any reason to defend Trump. If you're given two rotten apples, each one being rotten doesn't make the other one turn fresh. You look for better apples, because you don't want to get sick from eating them. Yes, he's bad, but what it does give you a reason to defend is the idea that there is a reason other than being a complete idiot that someone may have had to vote for Trump back when the choice was between Hillary and Trump. If we're strictly talking about the present, he is independently shitty.
I absolutely agree with you, I think assigning malice to most of the people who voted for Trump is wrong, because a large portion of them were simply voting against Hillary - you can thank the two-party state for that. As long as you don't extend it to be cause to defend the man himself and what he does, when it's plainly batshit insane, you're okay in my book.
|
On May 16 2017 04:43 Uldridge wrote:
I can understand you have your principles, but if you have to choose between shit stain 1 and shit stain 2, why do you still want to make the decision? Why is the lesser of two evils still better? I don't think it is and I think this is a huge problem in mentality that you can't stray away from that.
Shit stain 1 is smaller and easier to clean up than #2, so I'd vote for #1. I don't disagree with xDaunt here. He should vote if he values having any voice, he's just wrong about which shit stain is worse.
Clinton would have brought her typical political corruption, but the country would otherwise be relatively smoothly run and will take a step or two forward or backwards depending on your perspective. If it's backwards, the next president could fix it in one term. It's the same with a Pence at the helm, just in the opposite direction from your Clinton perspective.
Trump is spreading gasoline all around and smashing a couple rocks together because they make cool sparks. His flaming rhetoric and rank ignorance are a dangerous combination domestically and internationally. That's before we even get to his cronyism and corruption. The country isn't on fire yet, but he's getting there. I'd like to stop the madman before he sets the fire rather than sit on my hands and say, "there's no fire yet, so give him a chance."
|
On May 16 2017 04:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 04:52 Nebuchad wrote:
You cannot at the same time refuse a blank vote and complain that you didn't have a choice but vote for Trump. If he's a positive over no one, then that's the primary reason why you voted for him, not the lack of choice that you were given, and so the martyrdom is unwarranted. Not that that's what I'm doing, but why not? And since you seem to be confused, I'm not apologizing for my Trump vote at all, nor am I claiming that I voted for him because there was no viable alternative (even though there wasn't).
Because the act of voting for Trump over no one necessitates a level of support, which contradicts the notion that you would have voted for him "because you had no choice".
But it appears I misunderstood you. I don't get your "This x1000" as it stands, then.
|
On May 16 2017 04:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On May 16 2017 02:27 Velr wrote:
If you voted trump and still would, yes, your the very definition of stupid partisanship.
I can get behind plenty of conservative (not religious conservative) positions because i deal with hardcore conservatives everyday (which tend to be a bit more religious here too).
I don't agree with them but i see where they are comming from and thanks to my job i see the stupidity of the left daily.
The thing is: If you now still stand behind trump, you better get paid by him or your just dillusional and want your country to go down.
Ffs "not voting for someone like trump" is actually the best argument "the establishment" had against the hard right since... i don't know, i'm 34 and don't remember such a shitshow in any modern/firstworld country.
Berlusconi looked better than Trump when he was at his worst. Which is why I have to keep bringing it up. Because people don't believe there were actually two choices at play, and there's compelling arguments for repeating that vote for Trump. Oh, and by the way, this continually blasting of Trump's mistakes while recognizing none of the background arguments is called nonpartisanship or something by the left and it's frankly drop-dead hilarious. "He's objectively ..." mmhmm I'll listen in when hardcore alt-Left and regressive-Left persons make conservative positions not look unideological. You'll have to take off the horse blinders while staring gape-mouthed at Trump for maybe a couple weeks to notice the media, DNC, and leftist cultural warriors are all complicit. Now let's all repeat together that Trump is awful and all his supporters are "delusional and want your country to go down." Because that's how you show you're above "the very definition of stupid partisanship." Jesus Christ, this x1000. Given my stated positions and policy preferences, who the fuck am I supposed to vote for if not Trump? Sure as shit won't be a Democrat for obvious reasons. And which Republican should I be voting for? Most of them sucked donkey ass last time around, and I'm not holding out hope that the next crop will be much better if Trump fails.
Um.
Maybe someone else? Like, anyone else?
Maybe someone who doesn't go on NBC television and tell Americans they should respect a man like Putin because he has 85% approval rating? That didn't bother you?
Maybe someone who doesn't talk about accosting women by their genitalia? Well, at least he'll cut taxes.
Maybe someone who has served the public's interest for at least one single day? Nah, more important than having someone competent is having someone who speaks my ideological brand.
Of course, it couldn't be Hillary, because you have ideological and politicaldifferences with her. So, yes, of course, you can't vote for someone you disagree with, but is at least competent and sane. You had to vote for the orange reality-show. This doesn't make you stupidly partisan, it makes you... _____?
I genuinely don't get it, yet you say it's "obvious" you couldn't vote for Hillary. So... lowering taxes on rich people and cutting welfare and worker-protection is more important than anything else? That seems to be your point, and you think it shows you aren't blind by ideology? I think you're proving that you exactly are blind by ideology. You'll vote for the ideological label, and all the other context is just meaningless.
You can't vote Democrat. Ever. By your own admission. You've drawn a line in the sand, and are forcing the rest of your life to it. Well, sorry, but to me, this is ignorance defined.
Your political party has spent 8 years telling you they know better than the Democrats when it comes to healthcare.
8 years they spent telling you, and me, that they will do better.
If you haven't figured it out, that was 8 years of them lying to your face. If this is the sum of your ideology in action, maybe it's time you set different priorities in how you vote.
|
Pretty sure it's the nationalist argument that resonates with xDaunt rather than the fiscal argument.
|
candidates have to earn your vote, this shit stain 1 vs shit stain 2 pragmatism isn't for everyone, and certainly not for me.
|
On May 16 2017 05:01 RenSC2 wrote:
Shit stain 1 is smaller and easier to clean up than #2, so I'd vote for #1. I don't disagree with xDaunt here. He should vote if he values having any voice, he's just wrong about which shit stain is worse.
Clinton would have brought her typical political corruption, but the country would otherwise be relatively smoothly run and will take a step or two forward or backwards depending on your perspective. If it's backwards, the next president could fix it in one term. It's the same with a Pence at the helm, just in the opposite direction from your Clinton perspective.
Trump is spreading gasoline all around and smashing a couple rocks together because they make cool sparks. His flaming rhetoric and rank ignorance are a dangerous combination domestically and internationally. That's before we even get to his cronyism and corruption. The country isn't on fire yet, but he's getting there. I'd like to stop the madman before he sets the fire rather than sit on my hands and say, "there's no fire yet, so give him a chance."
This is where you and I disagree, then. I see voting blank completely as having a choice. It's the choice that I don't support any of the proposed candidates because they're non representative of what the public (or myself) want/need. From an outsider seeing the US field these two characters as potentials leaders was just completely mind boggling. And what was even more mind boggling was that people seemed to side between the two choices rather that finally understand that's it's been enough. That what has been proposed was unacceptable. That having to choose between these two was one step too far. But apparently it wasn't. It makes me sad that you rather try for a status quo than actual improvement.
|
On May 16 2017 05:02 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 04:52 Nebuchad wrote:
You cannot at the same time refuse a blank vote and complain that you didn't have a choice but vote for Trump. If he's a positive over no one, then that's the primary reason why you voted for him, not the lack of choice that you were given, and so the martyrdom is unwarranted. Not that that's what I'm doing, but why not? And since you seem to be confused, I'm not apologizing for my Trump vote at all, nor am I claiming that I voted for him because there was no viable alternative (even though there wasn't). Because the act of voting for Trump over no one necessitates a level of support, which contradicts the notion that you would have voted for him "because you had no choice". But it appears I misunderstood you. I don't get your "This x1000" as it stands, then.
You can vote for somebody because you believe in his platform and because no one else has an acceptable platform. The two concepts seem perfectly consistent to me. If instead of Hillary we had another candidate with a similar, but slightly lesser platform than Trump's, I probably would have voted for the other candidate instead.
What many of the Leftists around here forget is that we on the Right have different ideas for how to make America great than the Left does (this is where Uldridge is getting tripped up). Given the Left's love affair with all things subjective, one would think that this omission in thought wouldn't occur.
|
United States43293 Posts
I'm not seeing this "we had two bad choices" thing either way. Hillary would have been fine. Basically just more of the same. Slow paced progress on LGBT rights, slow paced action in the face of climate change, slow paced action in the Middle East vs atrocities, slow paced progress on tax reform to limit inequality, slow paced action on healthcare reform etc. The last eight years have been pretty fucking incredible for America, give me more of the same, thanks.
I'd still vote for Hillary today. I'd have voted for her in a vacuum. I'd have voted for Obama before her but Hillary before most other options. Pretty much all the Clinton scandals are massively overblown (like Benghazi) or literal works of fiction by conservative hit teams (Uranium One). She's basically fine. A centrist neo-liberal who doesn't want to take away your healthcare or nationalize the means of production.
|
On May 16 2017 04:59 prplhz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:
Voting no one is akin to voting for apathy and not a good move. I did that once, never again. You just get written off as "one of those people who don't vote" and it makes no statement of anything other than just a wee tick down on the "voter turnout" percentage. I don't think so. The only practical difference of course is that with one you indicate your actual willingness to go and vote and with the other you don't. With one you show complete apathy, with the other you show apathy for the candidates but enthusiasm for democracy and for someone else besides the possible candidates to run. Imagine if more people voted blank than voted for the winning candidate. That would obviously tell a different story than if all the blank votes had just stayed at home. I think it's even more so in USA where voting is not that straight forward and you have to register and pay a fee and take a day off and stand in a huge line and things like that to vote.
You can vote by mail in a lot of states. I do.
In the US, it's probably better to vote third party, because "blank vote" doesn't really send a message either. Because no one cares about "blank votes" here but if Gary Johnson got 20% that would be a message sent.
|
On May 16 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:02 Nebuchad wrote:On May 16 2017 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 04:52 Nebuchad wrote:
You cannot at the same time refuse a blank vote and complain that you didn't have a choice but vote for Trump. If he's a positive over no one, then that's the primary reason why you voted for him, not the lack of choice that you were given, and so the martyrdom is unwarranted. Not that that's what I'm doing, but why not? And since you seem to be confused, I'm not apologizing for my Trump vote at all, nor am I claiming that I voted for him because there was no viable alternative (even though there wasn't). Because the act of voting for Trump over no one necessitates a level of support, which contradicts the notion that you would have voted for him "because you had no choice". But it appears I misunderstood you. I don't get your "This x1000" as it stands, then. You can vote for somebody because you believe in his platform and because no one else has an acceptable platform. The two concepts seem perfectly consistent to me. If instead of Hillary we had another candidate with a similar, but slightly lesser platform than Trump's, I probably would have voted for the other candidate instead. What many of the Leftists around here forget is that we on the Right have different ideas for how to make America great than the Left does (this is where Uldridge is getting tripped up). Given the Left's love affair with all things subjective, one would think that this omission in thought wouldn't occur.
What you describe isn't "having no choice", it's "choosing".
|
On May 16 2017 05:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 05:02 Nebuchad wrote:On May 16 2017 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2017 04:52 Nebuchad wrote:
You cannot at the same time refuse a blank vote and complain that you didn't have a choice but vote for Trump. If he's a positive over no one, then that's the primary reason why you voted for him, not the lack of choice that you were given, and so the martyrdom is unwarranted. Not that that's what I'm doing, but why not? And since you seem to be confused, I'm not apologizing for my Trump vote at all, nor am I claiming that I voted for him because there was no viable alternative (even though there wasn't). Because the act of voting for Trump over no one necessitates a level of support, which contradicts the notion that you would have voted for him "because you had no choice". But it appears I misunderstood you. I don't get your "This x1000" as it stands, then. You can vote for somebody because you believe in his platform and because no one else has an acceptable platform. The two concepts seem perfectly consistent to me. If instead of Hillary we had another candidate with a similar, but slightly lesser platform than Trump's, I probably would have voted for the other candidate instead. What many of the Leftists around here forget is that we on the Right have different ideas for how to make America great than the Left does (this is where Uldridge is getting tripped up). Given the Left's love affair with all things subjective, one would think that this omission in thought wouldn't occur. What you describe isn't "having no choice", it's "choosing".
Don't look at me, you're the one trying to inject this "people voted for Trump because they had no choice" concept into the discussion. I think it's all semantics.
|
On May 16 2017 04:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 04:52 Nebuchad wrote:
You cannot at the same time refuse a blank vote and complain that you didn't have a choice but vote for Trump. If he's a positive over no one, then that's the primary reason why you voted for him, not the lack of choice that you were given, and so the martyrdom is unwarranted. Not that that's what I'm doing, but why not? And since you seem to be confused, I'm not apologizing for my Trump vote at all, nor am I claiming that I voted for him because there was no viable alternative (even though there wasn't).
Would you trust Trump alone with your daughter?
|
On May 16 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:
You can vote for somebody because you believe in his platform and because no one else has an acceptable platform. The two concepts seem perfectly consistent to me. If instead of Hillary we had another candidate with a similar, but slightly lesser platform than Trump's, I probably would have voted for the other candidate instead.
What many of the Leftists around here forget is that we on the Right have different ideas for how to make America great than the Left does (this is where Uldridge is getting tripped up). Given the Left's love affair with all things subjective, one would think that this omission in thought wouldn't occur.
I completely understand that we have different ideas on how to make a country great (because I'm not from the US  ), but that still doesn't make you address my questions. You still haven't concretely laid out to me why you think Trump has the potential to be a great president. I would appreciate your insight very much, thank you.
On May 16 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:
I'm not seeing this "we had two bad choices" thing either way. Hillary would have been fine. Basically just more of the same. Slow paced progress on LGBT rights, slow paced action in the face of climate change, slow paced action in the Middle East vs atrocities, slow paced progress on tax reform to limit inequality, slow paced action on healthcare reform etc. The last eight years have been pretty fucking incredible for America, give me more of the same, thanks.
I'd still vote for Hillary today. I'd have voted for her in a vacuum. I'd have voted for Obama before her but Hillary before most other options. Pretty much all the Clinton scandals are massively overblown (like Benghazi) or literal works of fiction by conservative hit teams (Uranium One). She's basically fine. A centrist neo-liberal who doesn't want to take away your healthcare or nationalize the means of production.
I guess I'm waaaaay more extremist in that case then. I don't think anything of the same is fine. I despise how today's things are run. Even if it means you're doing well as a whole. It could be better. It should be better. And not just for yourself, but for everyone.
|
United States43293 Posts
On May 16 2017 05:18 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote:
You can vote for somebody because you believe in his platform and because no one else has an acceptable platform. The two concepts seem perfectly consistent to me. If instead of Hillary we had another candidate with a similar, but slightly lesser platform than Trump's, I probably would have voted for the other candidate instead.
What many of the Leftists around here forget is that we on the Right have different ideas for how to make America great than the Left does (this is where Uldridge is getting tripped up). Given the Left's love affair with all things subjective, one would think that this omission in thought wouldn't occur. I completely understand that we have different ideas on how to make a country great (because I'm not from the US ), but that still doesn't make you address my questions. You still haven't concretely laid out to me why you think Trump has the potential to be a great president. I would appreciate your insight very much, thank you. Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:12 KwarK wrote:
I'm not seeing this "we had two bad choices" thing either way. Hillary would have been fine. Basically just more of the same. Slow paced progress on LGBT rights, slow paced action in the face of climate change, slow paced action in the Middle East vs atrocities, slow paced progress on tax reform to limit inequality, slow paced action on healthcare reform etc. The last eight years have been pretty fucking incredible for America, give me more of the same, thanks.
I'd still vote for Hillary today. I'd have voted for her in a vacuum. I'd have voted for Obama before her but Hillary before most other options. Pretty much all the Clinton scandals are massively overblown (like Benghazi) or literal works of fiction by conservative hit teams (Uranium One). She's basically fine. A centrist neo-liberal who doesn't want to take away your healthcare or nationalize the means of production. I guess I'm waaaaay more extremist in that case then. I don't think anything of the same is fine. I despise how today's things are run. Even if it means you're doing well as a whole. It could be better. It should be better. And not just for yourself, but for everyone.
I mean obviously the US needs a left wing European style government. I'm from Europe and I live in the US, I can see that every day. But the problem with America is that it's filled with Americans and Americans are pretty special and they have a lot of interesting beliefs about themselves and the world that wouldn't happen in places that properly fund their education systems. And with that in mind I don't really mind the slow drift towards becoming a real country that was the defining part of the Obama presidency.
|
On May 16 2017 05:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 04:59 prplhz wrote:On May 16 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:
Voting no one is akin to voting for apathy and not a good move. I did that once, never again. You just get written off as "one of those people who don't vote" and it makes no statement of anything other than just a wee tick down on the "voter turnout" percentage. I don't think so. The only practical difference of course is that with one you indicate your actual willingness to go and vote and with the other you don't. With one you show complete apathy, with the other you show apathy for the candidates but enthusiasm for democracy and for someone else besides the possible candidates to run. Imagine if more people voted blank than voted for the winning candidate. That would obviously tell a different story than if all the blank votes had just stayed at home. I think it's even more so in USA where voting is not that straight forward and you have to register and pay a fee and take a day off and stand in a huge line and things like that to vote. You can vote by mail in a lot of states. I do. In the US, it's probably better to vote third party, because "blank vote" doesn't really send a message either. Because no one cares about "blank votes" here but if Gary Johnson got 20% that would be a message sent.
But it would be a message sent that you support Gary Johnson.
|
On May 16 2017 05:21 prplhz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:13 LegalLord wrote:On May 16 2017 04:59 prplhz wrote:On May 16 2017 04:41 LegalLord wrote:
Voting no one is akin to voting for apathy and not a good move. I did that once, never again. You just get written off as "one of those people who don't vote" and it makes no statement of anything other than just a wee tick down on the "voter turnout" percentage. I don't think so. The only practical difference of course is that with one you indicate your actual willingness to go and vote and with the other you don't. With one you show complete apathy, with the other you show apathy for the candidates but enthusiasm for democracy and for someone else besides the possible candidates to run. Imagine if more people voted blank than voted for the winning candidate. That would obviously tell a different story than if all the blank votes had just stayed at home. I think it's even more so in USA where voting is not that straight forward and you have to register and pay a fee and take a day off and stand in a huge line and things like that to vote. You can vote by mail in a lot of states. I do. In the US, it's probably better to vote third party, because "blank vote" doesn't really send a message either. Because no one cares about "blank votes" here but if Gary Johnson got 20% that would be a message sent. But it would be a message sent that you support Gary Johnson.
Not necessarily. We all know he can't win. Supporting him is quite cleanly a protest vote.
|
On May 16 2017 05:21 KwarK wrote:
I mean obviously the US needs a left wing European style government. I'm from Europe and I live in the US, I can see that every day. But the problem with America is that it's filled with Americans and Americans are pretty special and they have a lot of interesting beliefs about themselves and the world that wouldn't happen in places that properly fund their education systems. And with that in mind I don't really mind the slow drift towards becoming a real country that was the defining part of the Obama presidency.
So make them European again. Preach, KwarK, preach! Make Americans European again!
On May 16 2017 05:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2017 05:21 prplhz wrote:
But it would be a message sent that you support Gary Johnson. Not necessarily. We all know he can't win.
That's a fucked up philosophy lol. If 50% of the people voted blank and 25% of the votes went to the big parties, a huge message would be sent. The message would be: DRAFT BETTER PEOPLE TO REPRESENT US. GET THOSE MONKEYS OUT OF HERE!
|
On May 16 2017 05:10 biology]major wrote:
candidates have to earn your vote, this shit stain 1 vs shit stain 2 pragmatism isn't for everyone, and certainly not for me.
This is called apathy.
It's a sure symptom of the internet age, when you can cast infinite gobs of cynicism on any person or thing that you please. "They're both shit stains." You can say things like that with little argument, and find a lot of agreement -- like most platitudes. That is what they're good for. Nice for casual conversation with polite strangers, but not a great way to engage in politics.
But, no. It'd be much more accurate to say, one is a civics-educated politician with years of civil service with whom I have political disagreements. The other is a "reality"-businessman with a Wrestlemania-persona who says things I like to hear.
They're hardly the same. There are stark, clear differences, which some would like to ignore.
But this equivalency and urge to simplify things into "same shit, different pile" isn't actually non-partisan at all. It's the type of thing a person will say when they want to disavow responsibility for their own partisanship. "Yeah, I voted for Bush and Trump, but, eh, like Hillary would've been any better."
Well, maybe Hillary would've been better. Maybe not. But she sure as shit would NOT be the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
