EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2249
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JohnDelaney
Ireland73 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On April 11 2020 02:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: While it's true that those two statements are not equivalent on their face, they're certainly equivalent in terms of affecting the outcome of the election (unless you're explicitly voting for Trump). The final count of Biden's votes vs. Trump's votes will be the same if you don't vote for either of them (whether that's voting third-party, writing in Sanders, not voting at all, etc.). While a vote for the Green party or whoever may not effect the election directly it would at least demonstrate that there are people who do vote and who do support Progressive policies that Democrats might try to win if they're losing by margins that necessitate they get those voters should they want to win. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46692 Posts
On April 11 2020 02:32 Zambrah wrote: While a vote for the Green party or whoever may not effect the election directly it would at least demonstrate that there are people who do vote and who do support Progressive policies that Democrats might try to win if they're losing by margins that necessitate they get those voters should they want to win. Agreed. It won't affect who actually becomes president in the 2020 election, but theoretically those other options could have a different sort of impact in the future. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
On April 11 2020 02:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: While it's true that those two statements are not equivalent on their face, they're certainly equivalent in terms of affecting the outcome of the election (unless you're explicitly voting for Trump). The final count of Biden's votes vs. Trump's votes will be the same if you don't vote for either of them (whether that's voting third-party, writing in Sanders, not voting at all, etc.). Statistically speaking this isn't true either. It's a major reason neither candidate was able to get 50% of the vote in 2016. They simply aren't equivalent. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46692 Posts
On April 11 2020 02:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Statistically speaking this isn't true either. It's a major reason neither candidate was able to get 50% of the vote in 2016. They simply aren't equivalent. ? 50% of the vote doesn't matter. What matters is winning the electoral college, unless you're referring to a hypothetical scenario where a third-party candidate could actually beat both Trump and Biden? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
On April 11 2020 02:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: ? 50% of the vote doesn't matter. What matters is winning the electoral college, unless you're referring to a hypothetical scenario where a third-party candidate could actually beat both Trump and Biden? It means they aren't equivalent statistically when it comes to the final count of votes. Obviously because votes for someone else are votes for someone else, but also because it means things like Hillary couldn't say "I got the majority of votes". You're right that people that don't vote and people that vote for the losing candidates don't change the end result though. I would say "voting for a losing candidate and not voting produce equivalent outcomes" is a more accurate way to describe the issue. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9077 Posts
On April 11 2020 02:31 JohnDelaney wrote: Reminder that unless you're a Native American your not-too-distant ancestors likely fled to North America because they felt they couldn't suffiiciently change whatever system to benefit them. Would be a bit ironic if you could somehow go back in time and tell them to not "bitch and moan about [how] the system keeps you down." And the slaves? Pretty narrow view you have there. | ||
|
JohnDelaney
Ireland73 Posts
On April 11 2020 02:55 JimmiC wrote: It is pretty easy for people to immigrate to North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and so on. I'm not sure about China but I also think it would not be that difficult. North Korea does not allow immigration. The latter three do give residency visas, with Cuba requiring marriage with a citizen for permanent residency, and Venezuela and China requiring a degree and approved invitation from a business for temporary residency. China very rarely gives out permanent residency visas, like 1000 per year, reserved for the wealthiest investors and celebrities. The only countries in the world AFAIK that are "pretty easy" to immigrate to are Mexico, Ecuador, and maybe Panama. You don't need to be a retiree, millionaire, have a degree or get married to qualify for residency visas there. | ||
|
JohnDelaney
Ireland73 Posts
On April 11 2020 04:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: And the slaves? Pretty narrow view you have there. The word "likely" is a powerful qualifier that negates your argument. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On April 11 2020 02:08 JimmiC wrote: The problem with your whole theory is it no way puts your foot down on Biden, it empowers Trump that is it. You did have a chance to your foot down in the Primary though, but not enough of the young people showed up. Why does the party as a whole bend over backwards for moderate votes, but largely ignores even the most popular and basic left policy platforms? Easy, the left always votes Democrat so there's no need to adopt their popular positions. That fundamentally has to change for anything about how the Democrat party works to change for the better. And you really really don't want a nativist right to co-opt social policies (which is already starting to happen) as that has historically gone very very poorly. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
On April 11 2020 04:56 Logo wrote: Why does the party as a whole bend over backwards for moderate votes, but largely ignores even the most popular and basic left policy platforms? Easy, the left always votes Democrat so there's no need to adopt their popular positions. That fundamentally has to change for anything about how the Democrat party works to change for the better. And you really really don't want a nativist right to co-opt social policies (which is already starting to happen) as that has historically gone very very poorly. That nativism and "love it or leave it" type of attitude toward marginalized and exploited peoples domestically and abroad is just flat out more popular in the Democratic party than I think the left wing of Democrats want/ed to believe. Without Bernie in the race, politically there's not going to be a lot of space between Biden and Trump as they campaign to the center while trying to keep their base imo. Basically, Biden's gone as far left as he's going rhetorically or policy prescription wise, everything he's proposing will be more conservative by November, and even more conservative if it ever gets to Congress. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9077 Posts
On April 11 2020 04:21 JohnDelaney wrote: The word "likely" is a powerful qualifier that negates your argument. It doesn't in the least. But I won't squabble with you over it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12620 Posts
I liked the whole thing but the election talk starts at 46:17. They could have gone a little deeper but still. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
On April 11 2020 05:20 Nebuchad wrote: I thought this was a pretty interesting conversation between two leftists, one kind of Bernie or Bust and one who thinks you should vote for Biden. If you're a leftist this might challenge your ideas. I liked the whole thing but the election talk starts at 46:17. They could have gone a little deeper but still. + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1gPUiCDMQo&t=121s Sounds like sheepdogging to me. I think they raise an interesting point though. What if whether Biden wins or not the conservative court does overturn Roe V Wade in the near future? That's the "vote for Biden with your nose plugged" guy's point where he says people should leave. Roe v. Wade is probably safer under Biden, but there is no guarantee and there's already instances of Texas using the pandemic to file abortions under "non-urgent" medical procedures they can halt and been upheld on appeal. So if in their first session, (Biden win or not) they overturn Roe v Wade, then what? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
No the reason is because the left is smaller and that is how democracy works. If the left was larger and had more votes then the Moderates would be in here claiming what you are but that they have to decide between a communist and fascist. You get to choose between a fascist and a centrist. To me it is a pretty easy choice. If the left is so small and meaningless then why does it matter if they all sit out the election? How do you reconcile that even among Biden voters the majority want Medicare for All? Either you need the left in the coalition to win or you don't. You can't have it both ways with 'We don't need to implement any left policy ideas' and 'We need the left to vote for us or we all lose horribly'. Also who isn't voting? Most people saying they aren't voting for Biden are still going to vote. Voting against the collective self interest only serves to further support the system that got us exactly where you are, but not showing up at all just dumps you in a silent group of people who are disenfranchised and/or unable to participate. The rest of your post is just trashy non-voter bashing peddling worn out tropes that misrepresent why some people are able to participate more in the democracy than others. Also you may not want to jump on the "Biden people vote" thing yet. The only 2016 group to break for Clinton was the younger demographics and they did it enough and in enough numbers to give her the popular vote. That's even before you get to the fact that young people are the ones that organize, call, and go door to door. Good luck with your old people, they may write letters to the manager but that's it. | ||
| ||
