|
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 |
|
|
On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!"
It's a tautology. Their a prior formulation is that the GOP is always worse, therefore, your only choice is to vote for the (D). It's the same spiel that goes on with (R) folks. Throw in some thing about existential threat, little bit of scare tactics, and accusatory derogative remarks, and presto-chango. No one earns a vote or votes on principal anymore.
I vote for libertarian principles if given the choice whether that happens to be in any party (though since Larry McDonald died there has been no libertarian Democrats...), and people shaming folks for voting their conscious are abominable.
|
|
|
On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!"
I think overly theoretical stuff is stupid, but I could imagine a candidate that would make me vote for Trump. Couldn't be all that much worse until I just move to Canada. If someone called for the extermination of all non-whites, yeah, I'll vote for Trump instead, lol. My wife and I are planning our finances such that we could move to Canada in ~June if Trump wins. Its basically just an example of extreme privilege, but American culture is really going in a bad direction right now and we are just way too divided. The US can be a great country, and once was, but I honestly think raising a kid in the US plain and simply doesn't make sense (assuming our country continues on this path) when you are a Canadian citizen.
|
On September 18 2020 23:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:51 Wegandi wrote:On September 18 2020 22:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:28 Wegandi wrote:
Can we get past calling someone anti-woman for holding a different view on abortion?
1. No. 2. Who was calling someone anti-woman just because of their view on abortion? If you're referring to anyone talking about Trump, I'm sure the inclusion of raping/assaulting/harassing countless women, and making completely inappropriate and misogynistic comments are included in his anti-woman assessment, rather than him only being against them having the right to bodily autonomy. I could care less about Trump. You called folks anti-woman for holding different view on abortion and you think Republicans are anti-suffrage. That's hilarious. You live in a bubble that you hurl at the other side about echo chambers and living in fantasy. I'm sure you said really nice things about Palin, Kristi Noem, Nikki Haley, Margaret Thatcher, Alveda King, etc. I'm sure you're all gung-ho on Ayn Rand, Rose Wilder Lane, Jo Jorgenson, Isabel Paterson, Theodora Nathan, Lisa Kennedy, Mary Ruwart, etc. My point is both sides say some nasty shit about the other sides women. Vile. Can step off that high-horse at anytime. This sounds like the black friend defense for racism. Look if your number 1 issues is you have lots of money and don't want to pay much taxes, then voting republican makes sense. Just because some people who have lots of money choose to vote Democrat does not make the Republicans and Democrats equal on taxing the rich. Same thing goes for women's rights. What I do agree with is that not all women agree, there are many women, albeit a smaller group, who would think that a women's place is in the home and there by would really not care about women being treated as equal at the workplace. My disagreement would be if you were to say that Reps and Dems have equal positions on women's rights.
My disagreement is that people being labeled anti-woman for holding (legitimate, mind you - each side has persuasive arguments on this issue (I tend to be somewhere between Walter Blocks evictionism and "Pro-life" side)) different position on abortion and being against third-wave feminism. It's lazy and intellectually dishonest.
The % of people who hold the position you posited there is extremely low. It's used to frame the asinine proposition that Republicans hate women and want them subservient. The crazy Christian dominionists make up a tiny minority. It would be like me painting the Democrat party with the De Blasio brush that they want to abolish private property. It's absurd.
|
On September 18 2020 23:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 23:08 JimmiC wrote:On September 18 2020 22:51 Wegandi wrote:On September 18 2020 22:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:28 Wegandi wrote:
Can we get past calling someone anti-woman for holding a different view on abortion?
1. No. 2. Who was calling someone anti-woman just because of their view on abortion? If you're referring to anyone talking about Trump, I'm sure the inclusion of raping/assaulting/harassing countless women, and making completely inappropriate and misogynistic comments are included in his anti-woman assessment, rather than him only being against them having the right to bodily autonomy. I could care less about Trump. You called folks anti-woman for holding different view on abortion and you think Republicans are anti-suffrage. That's hilarious. You live in a bubble that you hurl at the other side about echo chambers and living in fantasy. I'm sure you said really nice things about Palin, Kristi Noem, Nikki Haley, Margaret Thatcher, Alveda King, etc. I'm sure you're all gung-ho on Ayn Rand, Rose Wilder Lane, Jo Jorgenson, Isabel Paterson, Theodora Nathan, Lisa Kennedy, Mary Ruwart, etc. My point is both sides say some nasty shit about the other sides women. Vile. Can step off that high-horse at anytime. This sounds like the black friend defense for racism. Look if your number 1 issues is you have lots of money and don't want to pay much taxes, then voting republican makes sense. Just because some people who have lots of money choose to vote Democrat does not make the Republicans and Democrats equal on taxing the rich. Same thing goes for women's rights. What I do agree with is that not all women agree, there are many women, albeit a smaller group, who would think that a women's place is in the home and there by would really not care about women being treated as equal at the workplace. My disagreement would be if you were to say that Reps and Dems have equal positions on women's rights.
My disagreement is that people being labeled anti-woman for holding (legitimate, mind you - each side has persuasive arguments on this issue (I tend to be somewhere between Walter Blocks evictionism and "Pro-life" side)) different position on abortion and being against third-wave feminism. It's lazy and intellectually dishonest. The % of people who hold the position you posited there is extremely low. It's used to frame the asinine proposition that Republicans hate women and want them subservient. The crazy Christian dominionists make up a tiny minority. It would be like me painting the Democrat party with the De Blasio brush that they want to abolish private property. It's absurd.
The mistake you are making here is assuming you have a solid idea of the issue and deciding no one else could have a viewpoint beyond yours. You don't know it is lazy and intellectually dishonest because you don't know you have a complete view. Also, as it pertains to ethics, the % of people holding a view isn't a consideration.
You seem to be saying this issue is pretty balanced on both ends, when you look at it objectively and listen to everyone. What if there is someone who has a greater capability to conduct that analysis and they decide differently? You don't really have visibility into that, so declaring someone is being intellectually dishonest for saying we CAN reach a conclusion is inappropriate.
|
On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!"
Oh I see... like needing to choose between Donald Trump and Tronald Dump, where DT is the regular Trump and TD is identical to DT in every way except he also punches a puppy every day? Presumably, this hypothetical scenario can only exist in a universe that has already won each of them their respective primaries, right? So no other candidate (regardless of how great they were) was popular enough to beat out DT and TD?
I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. I'm honestly not sure how hypothetically awful (and/or indistinguishable) both candidates would need to be, for me to say "I'm not going to vote for either", because I think of that statement ("I'm not going to vote for either") as an acknowledgment that I actually don't care about - and really don't see a fundamental difference between - which person becomes president.
|
On September 18 2020 22:51 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:28 Wegandi wrote:
Can we get past calling someone anti-woman for holding a different view on abortion?
1. No. 2. Who was calling someone anti-woman just because of their view on abortion? If you're referring to anyone talking about Trump, I'm sure the inclusion of raping/assaulting/harassing countless women, and making completely inappropriate and misogynistic comments are included in his anti-woman assessment, rather than him only being against them having the right to bodily autonomy. I could care less about Trump. You called folks anti-woman for holding different view on abortion and you think Republicans are anti-suffrage. That's hilarious. You live in a bubble that you hurl at the other side about echo chambers and living in fantasy. I'm sure you said really nice things about Palin, Kristi Noem, Nikki Haley, Margaret Thatcher, Alveda King, etc. I'm sure you're all gung-ho on Ayn Rand, Rose Wilder Lane, Jo Jorgenson, Isabel Paterson, Theodora Nathan, Lisa Kennedy, Mary Ruwart, etc. My point is both sides say some nasty shit about the other sides women. Vile. Can step off that high-horse at anytime.
Democrats didn't make fun of Palin for being a woman. Everyone made fun of Palin because she was a moron.
Republicans regularly made fun of Clinton for many things, including-and-especially for being a woman. The number of times I heard "She can't be president or else she'll bomb a country once a month on her period" or "Hillary is a weak woman who can't even please her man, so how can she lead a country" was atrocious. Sexist and atrocious.
The fact that there exist some Republicans who are women does not mean that the party is pro-woman. And, again, it's important to establish why someone disagrees with someone else. If I have an issue with Ayn Rand, or if I support something AOC says, it's not necessarily due to their sex.
|
On September 18 2020 22:56 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!" It's a tautology. Their a prior formulation is that the GOP is always worse, therefore, your only choice is to vote for the (D). It's the same spiel that goes on with (R) folks. Throw in some thing about existential threat, little bit of scare tactics, and accusatory derogative remarks, and presto-chango. No one earns a vote or votes on principal anymore. I vote for libertarian principles if given the choice whether that happens to be in any party (though since Larry McDonald died there has been no libertarian Democrats...), and people shaming folks for voting their conscious are abominable.
Libertarians are kinda split on abortion. There's the argument that as a libertarian, government shouldn't get involved. Then there's the argument that government's core purpose of preventing violence and coercion means the second life in the womb deserves government protection.
I think you're on to something when you point out "people shaming folks for voting their *conscience are abominable.
Granted, I've probably in the category of voting against the other candidate, rather than voting for my preferred candidate. That's been most of my votes in presidential elections in my entire lifetime. Let Democrats in, they fuck up my healthcare and call it a success, then accuse detractors of being uncaring monsters. Maybe they don't deserve power, even if I can't see a good way to make them a legitimate choice in elections (as in, Biden's probably the last gasp of something approximating centrism, and his defeat will probably not lead Democrats down the road of greater individual liberty and less intrusive nanny-state politics).
I think everybody reading this here is pretty walled into their views on whether Biden's "mini-Trump" or "Trump-lite" aspects are worth the cost, if they even have given it a deep look. I'll leave it be.
|
On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!" Oh I see... like needing to choose between Donald Trump and Tronald Dump, where DT is the regular Trump and TD is identical to DT in every way except he also punches a puppy every day? Presumably, this hypothetical scenario can only exist in a universe that has already won each of them their respective primaries, right? So no other candidate (regardless of how great they were) was popular enough to beat out DT and TD? I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. I'm honestly not sure how hypothetically awful (and/or indistinguishable) both candidates would need to be, for me to say "I'm not going to vote for either", because I think of that statement ("I'm not going to vote for either") as an acknowledgment that I actually don't care about - and really don't see a fundamental difference between - which person becomes president.
See, Mohdoo is going to run to Canada if it gets as bad for him and the people he cares about as I'd argue it is for me and people I care about. That's important to this question because it means it isn't that he doesn't know how bad it is for others, it's that so long as it isn't like that for him, lesser evilism/the status quo is acceptable.
Once lesser evilism stops satisfying his minimum threshold (where that threshold is matters less to this question than if it exists or what happens when it is finally crossed. I was curious if Trump crossed it for people though.) he will disengage the system by leaving. He acknowledges his remedy isn't a viable option for many/most people (but not what such a US means for its northern neighbors or the rest of the world, and that could be problematic on a generational timeline).
I think that describes a great deal of the ostensible left.
Just to be clear about the question, it's not about whether one can be easily identified as worse than the other. I'd be willing to grant that the "evil" that people would be voting for would be notably "less evil" than the alternative.
|
On September 18 2020 23:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:51 Wegandi wrote:On September 18 2020 22:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:28 Wegandi wrote:
Can we get past calling someone anti-woman for holding a different view on abortion?
1. No. 2. Who was calling someone anti-woman just because of their view on abortion? If you're referring to anyone talking about Trump, I'm sure the inclusion of raping/assaulting/harassing countless women, and making completely inappropriate and misogynistic comments are included in his anti-woman assessment, rather than him only being against them having the right to bodily autonomy. I could care less about Trump. You called folks anti-woman for holding different view on abortion and you think Republicans are anti-suffrage. That's hilarious. You live in a bubble that you hurl at the other side about echo chambers and living in fantasy. I'm sure you said really nice things about Palin, Kristi Noem, Nikki Haley, Margaret Thatcher, Alveda King, etc. I'm sure you're all gung-ho on Ayn Rand, Rose Wilder Lane, Jo Jorgenson, Isabel Paterson, Theodora Nathan, Lisa Kennedy, Mary Ruwart, etc. My point is both sides say some nasty shit about the other sides women. Vile. Can step off that high-horse at anytime. Democrats didn't make fun of Palin for being a woman. Everyone made fun of Palin because she was a moron. Republicans regularly made fun of Clinton for many things, including-and-especially for being a woman. The number of times I heard "She can't be president or else she'll bomb a country once a month on her period" or "Hillary is a weak woman who can't even please her man, so how can she lead a country" was atrocious. Sexist and atrocious. The fact that there exist some Republicans who are women does not mean that the party is pro-woman. And, again, it's important to establish why someone disagrees with someone else. If I have an issue with Ayn Rand, or if I support something AOC says, it's not necessarily due to their sex.
You're really misremembering Palin. From a book on the way she was attacked, just picking up some of the sex-involved insults:
She has been called a ‘freak show,’ a ‘joke,’ an ‘extreme liability,’ a ‘turncoat b*tch,’ an ‘insult,’ a ‘fire-breather,’ ‘xenophobic,’ a ‘sitcom of a vice-presidential choice,’ a ‘disaster movie,’ a ‘shallow’ person, ‘chirpy,’ a ‘provincial,’ a ‘disgrace to women’ who was ‘as fake as they come,’ a ‘nauseating,’ ‘cocky wacko,’ a ‘jack in the box,’ ‘Napoleon in bunny boots,’ ‘extreme,’ ‘radical,’ a ‘vessel,’ a ‘farce,’ ‘Bush in drag,’ ‘not very bright,’ ‘utterly unqualified,’ a ‘bimbo,’ ‘Danielle Quayle,’ the ‘new spokesperson for bellicosity and confrontation,’ a ‘fatal cancer,’ ‘like a really bad Disney movie,’ ‘laughable,’ an ‘odd combination of Chauncey Gardiner from Being There and Marge from Fargo,’ ‘dangerous,’ a ‘bully,’ the ‘biggest demagogue in America,’ the ‘Paleolithic Princess of Parsimonious Patriotism,’ the ‘anti-Wonder Woman,’ ‘judgmental’… ‘dictatorial’ with a ‘superior religious self-righteousness,’ a ‘racist’ who was ‘absurd,’ ‘scary,’ and a ‘token,’ a ‘bantamweight cheerleader,’ an ‘airhead,’ an ‘idiot,’ a ‘librarian in a porn film,’ a ‘Jesus freak,’ a ‘man with a vagina’… a ‘Drama Queen,’ a ‘Republican blow-up doll’ who ‘ideologically’ is ‘their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread,’ an ‘opportunistic anti-female,’ a ‘true Stepford candidate, a cyborg,’ a ‘quitter,’ and—this list is by no means exhaustive—a ‘bonbon.’
Yeah, you don't get to rewrite the history on Palin because you forgot all the sexism that was justified because of course she was a moron so it all counted as legitimate criticism. Try calling Kamala a disgrace to women, a bimbo, or a librarian in a porn film, and see if this counts as nonsexist criticism. The double standards and general forgetfulness is appalling. Absolutely stunning. Journalists even alleged her daughter's kid was actually her own. If you want to have an ounce of respect, argue that things have gotten a lot better since Palin's time, not that Hillary was treated in sexist fashion and Palin was not.
|
Democrats have been homophobic af insulting Trump too. Particularly Trump-Putin stuff.
|
On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!" Oh I see... like needing to choose between Donald Trump and Tronald Dump, where DT is the regular Trump and TD is identical to DT in every way except he also punches a puppy every day? Presumably, this hypothetical scenario can only exist in a universe that has already won each of them their respective primaries, right? So no other candidate (regardless of how great they were) was popular enough to beat out DT and TD? I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. I'm honestly not sure how hypothetically awful (and/or indistinguishable) both candidates would need to be, for me to say "I'm not going to vote for either", because I think of that statement ("I'm not going to vote for either") as an acknowledgment that I actually don't care about - and really don't see a fundamental difference between - which person becomes president.
I agree with your stance and particularly hate that hypothetical because what we have is a Democrat party that has sects (AOC/Bernie and more centrist like Biden) that work together to find a middle ground while the GOP seems to have people who support Trump no matter what, and a very small minority who support Trump and also Qanon?
Then there are those who lean left or right but don't sit on party lines and argue both candidates are lackluster and so don't vote. If you're waiting for perfect, it's not coming and never will. You don't wait for the perfect job, house, partner, and so why apply shirk your civic duty in the name of morality?
|
On September 18 2020 23:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!" Oh I see... like needing to choose between Donald Trump and Tronald Dump, where DT is the regular Trump and TD is identical to DT in every way except he also punches a puppy every day? Presumably, this hypothetical scenario can only exist in a universe that has already won each of them their respective primaries, right? So no other candidate (regardless of how great they were) was popular enough to beat out DT and TD? I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. I'm honestly not sure how hypothetically awful (and/or indistinguishable) both candidates would need to be, for me to say "I'm not going to vote for either", because I think of that statement ("I'm not going to vote for either") as an acknowledgment that I actually don't care about - and really don't see a fundamental difference between - which person becomes president. See, Mohdoo is going to run to Canada if it gets as bad for him and the people he cares about as I'd argue it is for me and people I care about. That's important to this question because it means it isn't that he doesn't know how bad it is for others, it's that so long as it isn't like that for him, lesser evilism/the status quo is acceptable.
This is a giant stretch and totally wrong. The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice. When I write in Bernie in Trump vs Dump, nothing actually happens. Those people aren't helped at all when I write in Bernie.
I've spoken at length about how my family was homeless for a while and relied on government aid for many years. If my mom had $300 less per month, it would have been GG. I can't tell the kids of today they can't eat because we need to take a stand for stuff to maybe happen in 20 years. If voting for Trump over Dump meant poor families got an extra $300/month, I'd never hesitate.
Separately, that experience as a kid showed me there is really NO replacement for just having a bunch of money. I prioritized making a bunch of money, so now I do. Because of that, and because I have seen how vulnerable children are to the lives their parents choose for them, I could not consider myself ethical if I chose to live in the US rather than move to Canada, if things continue as they have been. I would be choosing for my child to have a worse life. Can't do that.
|
On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture.
Right, of course, it makes sense that we have to keep this all in context and look at the bigger picture.
So what is this bigger picture? A temporary setback to more ambitious progress, with the good candidate just not making the cut due to unfortunate circumstance? A situation where if we just swallow our misgivings for a couple years and prevent the cataclysmic danger the other side poses, we will be back on the straight-and-narrow path to progress? Lesser of two evils right now, darn it, but if we hold out throughout this it'll be better for it!
See, the problem is that this argument isn't new. Looking at the Democrats alone, this argument has been made since Bill Clinton quite frequently. Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, each of them had a powerful "lesser of two evils" support base whenever people pointed to their records to show that they're mostly opportunists on social issues and not that much different from their Republican opponents in being corporatist shills that are slowly easing the working / middle class into more precarious economic conditions. The progression becomes bit-by-bit more distasteful, but "lesser of two evils" lives on just the same.
Is the bigger picture just that, like Mohdoo, you need a little more time to get your finances and your paperwork in place to jump ship and leave the country, and you need the "lesser evil" to stall for you a bit longer until you can do that? Or maybe just a little more time to leapfrog up into the wealthy class, where you will be well-suited to benefit, rather than suffer, from the larger trend? Because it sure as hell can't be that the larger trend is going to change course right after you get that "lesser evil" into office and stop the "irrevocable harm" that the greater evil might do.
|
On September 19 2020 00:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 23:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!" Oh I see... like needing to choose between Donald Trump and Tronald Dump, where DT is the regular Trump and TD is identical to DT in every way except he also punches a puppy every day? Presumably, this hypothetical scenario can only exist in a universe that has already won each of them their respective primaries, right? So no other candidate (regardless of how great they were) was popular enough to beat out DT and TD? I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. I'm honestly not sure how hypothetically awful (and/or indistinguishable) both candidates would need to be, for me to say "I'm not going to vote for either", because I think of that statement ("I'm not going to vote for either") as an acknowledgment that I actually don't care about - and really don't see a fundamental difference between - which person becomes president. See, Mohdoo is going to run to Canada if it gets as bad for him and the people he cares about as I'd argue it is for me and people I care about. That's important to this question because it means it isn't that he doesn't know how bad it is for others, it's that so long as it isn't like that for him, lesser evilism/the status quo is acceptable. This is a giant stretch and totally wrong. The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice. When I write in Bernie in Trump vs Dump, nothing actually happens. Those people aren't helped at all when I write in Bernie. I've spoken at length about how my family was homeless for a while and relied on government aid for many years. If my mom had $300 less per month, it would have been GG. I can't tell the kids of today they can't eat because we need to take a stand for stuff to maybe happen in 20 years. If voting for Trump over Dump meant poor families got an extra $300/month, I'd never hesitate. Separately, that experience as a kid showed me there is really replacement for just having a bunch of money. I prioritized making a bunch of money, so now I do. Because of that, and because I have seen how vulnerable children are to the lives their parents choose for them, I could not consider myself ethical if I chose to live in the US rather than move to Canada, if things continue as they have been. I would be choosing for my child to have a worse life. Can't do that.
I'm totally sincere when I say I don't know what you're saying I'm stretching/wrong about or what you mean by "The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice."
I'm not talking about writing in Bernie either, and as I clarified, for the sake of exploration people can think of it as "Drump v Hitler" if that makes sense?
On September 19 2020 00:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. + Show Spoiler +Right, of course, it makes sense that we have to keep this all in context and look at the bigger picture.
So what is this bigger picture? A temporary setback to more ambitious progress, with the good candidate just not making the cut due to unfortunate circumstance? A situation where if we just swallow our misgivings for a couple years and prevent the cataclysmic danger the other side poses, we will be back on the straight-and-narrow path to progress? Lesser of two evils right now, darn it, but if we hold out throughout this it'll be better for it!
See, the problem is that this argument isn't new. Looking at the Democrats alone, this argument has been made since Bill Clinton quite frequently. Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, each of them had a powerful "lesser of two evils" support base whenever people pointed to their records to show that they're mostly opportunists on social issues and not that much different from their Republican opponents in being corporatist shills that are slowly easing the working / middle class into more precarious economic conditions. The progression becomes bit-by-bit more distasteful, but "lesser of two evils" lives on just the same.
Is the bigger picture just that, like Mohdoo, you need a little more time to get your finances and your paperwork in place to jump ship and leave the country, and you need the "lesser evil" to stall for you a bit longer until you can do that? Or maybe just a little more time to leapfrog up into the wealthy class, where you will be well-suited to benefit, rather than suffer, from the larger trend? Because it sure as hell can't be that the larger trend is going to change course right after you get that "lesser evil" into office and stop the "irrevocable harm" that the greater evil might do.
I'm jealous I didn't write that.
|
On September 19 2020 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 00:13 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 23:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!" Oh I see... like needing to choose between Donald Trump and Tronald Dump, where DT is the regular Trump and TD is identical to DT in every way except he also punches a puppy every day? Presumably, this hypothetical scenario can only exist in a universe that has already won each of them their respective primaries, right? So no other candidate (regardless of how great they were) was popular enough to beat out DT and TD? I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. I'm honestly not sure how hypothetically awful (and/or indistinguishable) both candidates would need to be, for me to say "I'm not going to vote for either", because I think of that statement ("I'm not going to vote for either") as an acknowledgment that I actually don't care about - and really don't see a fundamental difference between - which person becomes president. See, Mohdoo is going to run to Canada if it gets as bad for him and the people he cares about as I'd argue it is for me and people I care about. That's important to this question because it means it isn't that he doesn't know how bad it is for others, it's that so long as it isn't like that for him, lesser evilism/the status quo is acceptable. This is a giant stretch and totally wrong. The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice. When I write in Bernie in Trump vs Dump, nothing actually happens. Those people aren't helped at all when I write in Bernie. I've spoken at length about how my family was homeless for a while and relied on government aid for many years. If my mom had $300 less per month, it would have been GG. I can't tell the kids of today they can't eat because we need to take a stand for stuff to maybe happen in 20 years. If voting for Trump over Dump meant poor families got an extra $300/month, I'd never hesitate. Separately, that experience as a kid showed me there is really replacement for just having a bunch of money. I prioritized making a bunch of money, so now I do. Because of that, and because I have seen how vulnerable children are to the lives their parents choose for them, I could not consider myself ethical if I chose to live in the US rather than move to Canada, if things continue as they have been. I would be choosing for my child to have a worse life. Can't do that. I'm totally sincere when I say I don't know what you're saying I'm stretching/wrong about or what you mean by "The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice." I'm not talking about writing in Bernie either, and as I clarified, for the sake of exploration people can think of it as "Drump v Hitler" if that makes sense? Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 00:16 LegalLord wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. + Show Spoiler +Right, of course, it makes sense that we have to keep this all in context and look at the bigger picture.
So what is this bigger picture? A temporary setback to more ambitious progress, with the good candidate just not making the cut due to unfortunate circumstance? A situation where if we just swallow our misgivings for a couple years and prevent the cataclysmic danger the other side poses, we will be back on the straight-and-narrow path to progress? Lesser of two evils right now, darn it, but if we hold out throughout this it'll be better for it!
See, the problem is that this argument isn't new. Looking at the Democrats alone, this argument has been made since Bill Clinton quite frequently. Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, each of them had a powerful "lesser of two evils" support base whenever people pointed to their records to show that they're mostly opportunists on social issues and not that much different from their Republican opponents in being corporatist shills that are slowly easing the working / middle class into more precarious economic conditions. The progression becomes bit-by-bit more distasteful, but "lesser of two evils" lives on just the same.
Is the bigger picture just that, like Mohdoo, you need a little more time to get your finances and your paperwork in place to jump ship and leave the country, and you need the "lesser evil" to stall for you a bit longer until you can do that? Or maybe just a little more time to leapfrog up into the wealthy class, where you will be well-suited to benefit, rather than suffer, from the larger trend? Because it sure as hell can't be that the larger trend is going to change course right after you get that "lesser evil" into office and stop the "irrevocable harm" that the greater evil might do. I'm jealous I didn't write that.
As I understand it, you were saying: The fact that I will leave the country shows I realize the lesser evil is still evil. That shows that as long as things are fine for me, I don't mind the lesser evil.
How about can you elaborate and more clearly explain your position? You aren't igne
|
On September 19 2020 00:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. Right, of course, it makes sense that we have to keep this all in context and look at the bigger picture. So what is this bigger picture? A temporary setback to more ambitious progress, with the good candidate just not making the cut due to unfortunate circumstance? A situation where if we just swallow our misgivings for a couple years and prevent the cataclysmic danger the other side poses, we will be back on the straight-and-narrow path to progress? Lesser of two evils right now, darn it, but if we hold out throughout this it'll be better for it! See, the problem is that this argument isn't new. Looking at the Democrats alone, this argument has been made since Bill Clinton quite frequently. Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, each of them had a powerful "lesser of two evils" support base whenever people pointed to their records to show that they're mostly opportunists on social issues and not that much different from their Republican opponents in being corporatist shills that are slowly easing the working / middle class into more precarious economic conditions. The progression becomes bit-by-bit more distasteful, but "lesser of two evils" lives on just the same. Is the bigger picture just that, like Mohdoo, you need a little more time to get your finances and your paperwork in place to jump ship and leave the country, and you need the "lesser evil" to stall for you a bit longer until you can do that? Or maybe just a little more time to leapfrog up into the wealthy class, where you will be well-suited to benefit, rather than suffer, from the larger trend? Because it sure as hell can't be that the larger trend is going to change course right after you get that "lesser evil" into office and stop the "irrevocable harm" that the greater evil might do.
Until I see a mechanism explained where that larger trend changes, pointing out that one option doesn't change the larger trend is silly. It isn't worse than another option. Funny enough, this is similar to the lesser evils argument. You don't have another mechanism. Saying something doesn't work well enough is not the same thing as proving something else works better.
|
On September 19 2020 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2020 00:13 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 23:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!" Oh I see... like needing to choose between Donald Trump and Tronald Dump, where DT is the regular Trump and TD is identical to DT in every way except he also punches a puppy every day? Presumably, this hypothetical scenario can only exist in a universe that has already won each of them their respective primaries, right? So no other candidate (regardless of how great they were) was popular enough to beat out DT and TD? I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. I'm honestly not sure how hypothetically awful (and/or indistinguishable) both candidates would need to be, for me to say "I'm not going to vote for either", because I think of that statement ("I'm not going to vote for either") as an acknowledgment that I actually don't care about - and really don't see a fundamental difference between - which person becomes president. See, Mohdoo is going to run to Canada if it gets as bad for him and the people he cares about as I'd argue it is for me and people I care about. That's important to this question because it means it isn't that he doesn't know how bad it is for others, it's that so long as it isn't like that for him, lesser evilism/the status quo is acceptable. This is a giant stretch and totally wrong. The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice. When I write in Bernie in Trump vs Dump, nothing actually happens. Those people aren't helped at all when I write in Bernie. I've spoken at length about how my family was homeless for a while and relied on government aid for many years. If my mom had $300 less per month, it would have been GG. I can't tell the kids of today they can't eat because we need to take a stand for stuff to maybe happen in 20 years. If voting for Trump over Dump meant poor families got an extra $300/month, I'd never hesitate. Separately, that experience as a kid showed me there is really replacement for just having a bunch of money. I prioritized making a bunch of money, so now I do. Because of that, and because I have seen how vulnerable children are to the lives their parents choose for them, I could not consider myself ethical if I chose to live in the US rather than move to Canada, if things continue as they have been. I would be choosing for my child to have a worse life. Can't do that. I'm totally sincere when I say I don't know what you're saying I'm stretching/wrong about or what you mean by "The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice." I'm not talking about writing in Bernie either, and as I clarified, for the sake of exploration people can think of it as "Drump v Hitler" if that makes sense? On September 19 2020 00:16 LegalLord wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. + Show Spoiler +Right, of course, it makes sense that we have to keep this all in context and look at the bigger picture.
So what is this bigger picture? A temporary setback to more ambitious progress, with the good candidate just not making the cut due to unfortunate circumstance? A situation where if we just swallow our misgivings for a couple years and prevent the cataclysmic danger the other side poses, we will be back on the straight-and-narrow path to progress? Lesser of two evils right now, darn it, but if we hold out throughout this it'll be better for it!
See, the problem is that this argument isn't new. Looking at the Democrats alone, this argument has been made since Bill Clinton quite frequently. Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, each of them had a powerful "lesser of two evils" support base whenever people pointed to their records to show that they're mostly opportunists on social issues and not that much different from their Republican opponents in being corporatist shills that are slowly easing the working / middle class into more precarious economic conditions. The progression becomes bit-by-bit more distasteful, but "lesser of two evils" lives on just the same.
Is the bigger picture just that, like Mohdoo, you need a little more time to get your finances and your paperwork in place to jump ship and leave the country, and you need the "lesser evil" to stall for you a bit longer until you can do that? Or maybe just a little more time to leapfrog up into the wealthy class, where you will be well-suited to benefit, rather than suffer, from the larger trend? Because it sure as hell can't be that the larger trend is going to change course right after you get that "lesser evil" into office and stop the "irrevocable harm" that the greater evil might do. I'm jealous I didn't write that. As I understand it, you were saying: The fact that I will leave the country shows I realize the lesser evil is still evil. That shows that as long as things are fine for me, I don't mind the lesser evil. How about can you elaborate and more clearly explain your position? You aren't igne
I wouldn't say "don't mind" I would say "acceptable" (as opposed to "unacceptable"). I also wouldn't say that is the entirety of what I was saying, but yes.
There was more post:Once lesser evilism stops satisfying his minimum threshold (where that threshold is matters less to this question than if it exists or what happens when it is finally crossed. I was curious if Trump crossed it for people though.) he will disengage the system by leaving. He acknowledges his remedy isn't a viable option for many/most people (but not what such a US means for its northern neighbors or the rest of the world, and that could be problematic on a generational timeline).
I think that describes a great deal of the ostensible left.
Just to be clear about the question, it's not about whether one can be easily identified as worse than the other. I'd be willing to grant that the "evil" that people would be voting for would be notably "less evil" than the alternative.
The clarification I made was that I was curious whether voting for a Trump figure (because the alternative was far worse) was beyond that threshold for people here.
|
On September 19 2020 00:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 00:16 LegalLord wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. Right, of course, it makes sense that we have to keep this all in context and look at the bigger picture. So what is this bigger picture? A temporary setback to more ambitious progress, with the good candidate just not making the cut due to unfortunate circumstance? A situation where if we just swallow our misgivings for a couple years and prevent the cataclysmic danger the other side poses, we will be back on the straight-and-narrow path to progress? Lesser of two evils right now, darn it, but if we hold out throughout this it'll be better for it! See, the problem is that this argument isn't new. Looking at the Democrats alone, this argument has been made since Bill Clinton quite frequently. Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, each of them had a powerful "lesser of two evils" support base whenever people pointed to their records to show that they're mostly opportunists on social issues and not that much different from their Republican opponents in being corporatist shills that are slowly easing the working / middle class into more precarious economic conditions. The progression becomes bit-by-bit more distasteful, but "lesser of two evils" lives on just the same. Is the bigger picture just that, like Mohdoo, you need a little more time to get your finances and your paperwork in place to jump ship and leave the country, and you need the "lesser evil" to stall for you a bit longer until you can do that? Or maybe just a little more time to leapfrog up into the wealthy class, where you will be well-suited to benefit, rather than suffer, from the larger trend? Because it sure as hell can't be that the larger trend is going to change course right after you get that "lesser evil" into office and stop the "irrevocable harm" that the greater evil might do. Until I see a mechanism explained where that larger trend changes, pointing out that one option doesn't change the larger trend is silly. It isn't worse than another option. Funny enough, this is similar to the lesser evils argument. You don't have another mechanism. Saying something doesn't work well enough is not the same thing as proving something else works better.
Again, with "lesser of two evils" you're not paving the way for improvement, you are at best stalling. And maybe that's just fine, assuming your goal is to stall until the problem no longer affects you. Maybe that Canada migration is indeed your correct strategy. But it's more likely that the reality is more that you'd prefer to salvage the situation in the place you're in now, and "lesser of two evils" is just a coping mechanism for not having a better path forward.
The truth is that when the system doesn't give you a choice, such as in our current "lesser of two evils" conundrum, eventually it forces people to act outside the system. Trump's campaign was the first real successful show of this, although when all is said and done he turned out to be little more than a trojan horse for the standard Republican agenda. Folks like GH have the right idea, in using the ballot box as a mechanism to diminish the apparent legitimacy of those in power (with some much-appreciated foreign help in 2016, it certainly at the very least reduced the legitimacy of the DNC as an organization). But if even that doesn't bear fruit, folks may have to turn to that very beautiful approach that our friends in France devised just over two centuries ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
