EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 516
| 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 | ||
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 22 2018 01:44 micronesia wrote: I'm surprised people still genuinely feel this way, aside from die-hard trump supporters. What would Trump have to do before you are like, "hm, maybe Clinton would have been better"? You can, but unless you have enough influence such that you are able to get your preferred candidate to the general election, you won't have enough influence to change the system in order to make a third party relevant. As I acknowledged this is a big problem. For me Clinton-Trump is six one, half dozen the other. Clinton wouldn't have started a trade war, but an actual war. Zero sum game. I only see one logical way out of this neoliberal see-saw. I really do not want another windfall gift to Wall Street in the form of the goldilocks economy and private debt expansion. Welfare and prison reform... etc. I know people have short memories, but seriously? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21793 Posts
On July 22 2018 01:02 Nebuchad wrote: That is a result of the EC. If the election was a pure popular vote the right would be forced to the left to appeal to more voters and provide push back against the left moving right. Do you see how in your system it's correct for the left to move right to get votes, but the right always stays in place? Shouldn't they move left to appeal to more voters, since the people on the right will be forced to vote for them anyway? The EC means that the right can win an election despite losing the popular vote by 3 million. And don't forget the GOP didn't want to move further right. It was their base that forced them back further in the primary's by supporting Trump over the other options. A similar thing could have happened on the left with the DNC wanting to move right to appeal to voters and being called back. But there was not a big enough far left base to get Bernie past the moderates. (or Hillary and the DNC controlled the field enough that there was not enough splintering of votes like happened to the GOP, by the time it came down to Trump vs Cruz the gap was to big). On July 22 2018 01:38 micronesia wrote: This, basically.If his logic is correct, then your problem is you are horribly outnumbered at that point and are unlikely to get a president who supports your values. At that point, the strategy you use won't affect whether or not you get a socialist president but will instead affect whether you get a Clinton or a Trump. It seems similar to me to how in some competitions you reach a point where you cannot win but you can have an effect on some of the other contenders that you can prevent from winning. Of course, the solution there is to convert more people who vote to your cause. The problem is most of the ultra-left people I talk to drive me further right. And yes if you take my position all the way you would vote the right most candidate because the left will follow you anyway. But in the primary you have a chance to have your voice heard with minimal consequence if you fail. If your candidate does not win the primary there is still a fallback in the general election for a candidate that will meet at least some of your values. There is no such fallback after the general election. If your candidate loses the other (worse) guy has won. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On July 22 2018 01:52 screamingpalm wrote: For me Clinton-Trump is six one, half dozen the other. Clinton wouldn't have started a trade war, but an actual war. Zero sum game. I don't really disagree with the rest of your post but I'll address this portion. It seems like, by far, the most major problem you see with President Trump is his trade war(s). I'm not sure I agree but it's certainly up there. You then seem to claim that Clinton would have started a war, equally bad as the trade war. Who would Clinton have started a war with? Why? The same countries as Trump has sucked into a trade war? None of this addresses the non-economical damage that Trump is doing so far. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
On July 22 2018 01:55 Gorsameth wrote: But in the primary you have a chance to have your voice heard with minimal consequence if you fail. Minimal consequence if we fail, but what happens if we win? Then we have a candidate that is objectively worse in your model in that he appeals to centrists (liberals) less, and they might vote for the other guy, causing us to lose altogether. Therefore taking that risk is terrible strategically. (Notice that in this outcome the centrists who voted for the republican won't be blamed, of course, it will be the leftists in the primary that are responsible for the loss). | ||
|
KwarK
United States42971 Posts
On July 21 2018 22:03 kollin wrote: I thought this discussion was about people voting for third choices/write-ins/whatever. If you're actively voting Trump you deserve absolute condemnation. There's not really much difference between the two. A vote for Clinton isn't really much different from -1 votes for Trump. If you have the option of doing -1 votes for Trump, 0 votes for Trump, or 1 vote for Trump, I fail to see how the middle option is opposition. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On July 22 2018 02:04 KwarK wrote: There's not really much difference between the two. A vote for Clinton isn't really much different from -1 votes for Trump. If you have the option of doing -1 votes for Trump, 0 votes for Trump, or 1 vote for Trump, I fail to see how the middle option is opposition. The difference is, if you vote Trump, Trump is more likely to win than if you write in the Geico gecko. Trump is also more likely to win if you write in the Geico gecko than if you vote for Hillary, but that's not relevant. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On July 22 2018 02:01 micronesia wrote: I don't really disagree with the rest of your post but I'll address this portion. It seems like, by far, the most major problem you see with President Trump is his trade war(s). I'm not sure I agree but it's certainly up there. You then seem to claim that Clinton would have started a war, equally bad as the trade war. Who would Clinton have started a war with? Why? The same countries as Trump has sucked into a trade war? None of this addresses the non-economical damage that Trump is doing so far. Well, I was trying to think of an issue where they differ. Clinton's no-fly zone stance on Syria during the primaries would most likely have seen us at war had she won (just for one example). Most areas that I see liberals complain about with Trump are no different than past Democratic presidents' stances. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On July 22 2018 02:04 KwarK wrote: There's not really much difference between the two. A vote for Clinton isn't really much different from -1 votes for Trump. If you have the option of doing -1 votes for Trump, 0 votes for Trump, or 1 vote for Trump, I fail to see how the middle option is opposition. Depends if you think moral responsibility lies within action or effect. For example, if someone wrote in Bernie on their ballot, and Clinton won, would they be equally morally responsible as writing in and then Trump winning? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21793 Posts
On July 22 2018 02:04 Nebuchad wrote: If you do not believe you have enough support to get your candidate through a general election you should probably build more support before making your move.Minimal consequence if we fail, but what happens if we win? Then we have a candidate that is objectively worse in your model in that he appeals to centrists (liberals) less, and they might vote for the other guy, causing us to lose altogether. Therefore taking that risk is terrible strategically. (Notice that in this outcome the centrists who voted for the republican won't be blamed, of course, it will be the leftists in the primary that are responsible for the loss). And where did I say Trump voters are not to blame? Blame is not a finite resource. I can blame Trump voters and people who abstain at the same time. And I do believe I have said that of course Republicans hold a greater blame for election Trump then progressives who decided not to vote out of protest over Clinton. And if I haven't there you have it now. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 22 2018 02:08 screamingpalm wrote: Well, I was trying to think of an issue where they differ. Clinton's no-fly zone stance on Syria during the primaries would most likely have seen us at war had she won (just for one example). Most areas that I see liberals complain about with Trump are no different than past Democratic presidents' stances. One of the reasons I dislike these rehashes of the 2016 elections is that the progressives possess this innate power to predict the future of a Clinton White House, while everyone is required to accept this reality. See previous comments about Supreme Court as well. It’s a irritating way for progressives to strengthen their arguments and deflect from realities of the Trump administration. Just think of liberals in this thread predicted a Bernie Sanders White House accomplishing nothing of legislative value due to poor management, running federal agencies into the ground and then losing 2020 assuring another 10 years of gerrymandering? No one would accept that as a good faith argument. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
On July 22 2018 02:16 Gorsameth wrote: And where did I say Trump voters are not to blame? Blame is not a finite resource. I can blame Trump voters and people who abstain at the same time. And I do believe I have said that of course Republicans hold a greater blame for election Trump then progressives who decided not to vote out of protest over Clinton. And if I haven't there you have it now. I'll give you 10 to 1 on 20$ that if a progressive loses to a republican in their general election, the democratic party will say that it was the fault of the progressives for electing that candidate in the primary rather than the fault of the people who didn't vote for them in the general. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42971 Posts
On July 22 2018 02:08 micronesia wrote: The difference is, if you vote Trump, Trump is more likely to win than if you write in the Geico gecko. Trump is also more likely to win if you write in the Geico gecko than if you vote for Hillary, but that's not relevant. It’s absolutely relevant. If your objective is to get the Trump number as low as possible and your options are to modify it by +1, +0, or -1 then anything but -1 isn’t opposition. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42971 Posts
On July 22 2018 02:13 kollin wrote: Depends if you think moral responsibility lies within action or effect. For example, if someone wrote in Bernie on their ballot, and Clinton won, would they be equally morally responsible as writing in and then Trump winning? If the effect is known ahead of time then the action cannot be divorced from it. Otherwise you could reduce things like the trolley problem to “it doesn’t matter, it’s only a lever, any position is as good as any other”. The action is the effect. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On July 22 2018 02:23 KwarK wrote: It’s absolutely relevant. If your objective is to get the Trump number as low as possible and your options are to modify it by +1, +0, or -1 then anything but -1 isn’t opposition. If your objective is to express yourself within the democratic system as opposed not only to Trump but to Clinton too, and in fact in favour of X candidate - regardless of primaries or whatever - then you don't have a responsibility to vote Clinton. I think, in the situation, I probably would have voted for her myself (if I lived somewhere it even made any difference), but that being said I think people who vote for Trump and people who vote for third parties DO occupy different categories. On July 22 2018 02:25 KwarK wrote: If the effect is known ahead of time then the action cannot be divorced from it. Otherwise you could reduce things like the trolley problem to “it doesn’t matter, it’s only a lever, any position is as good as any other”. I prefer another example than the trolley problem - the one where you're in the jungle, held captive by a tribe (I think this was devised in the 70s..) and they lead you to the 50 other captives, put a gun in your hand, and say: 'you have a choice. You can either kill one captive yourself, randomly selected, or we will kill the 49 others'. I don't think it would be wrong to choose not to commit murder yourself, just to prevent a greater number of murders, because that removes the moral agency for the action from both you and the tribe - there is no longer any sense of you being responsible for what you've done or not done, and them being responsible for what they've done or not done. In a godless world, though, you are right that arguably the apportioning of responsibility is really irrelevant when compared to material effects of whatever actions are taken. Nevertheless I still think that those who voted third party should rightly be able to sleep soundly at night, because I don't think in democracies people have a responsibility to choose between two evils as that only necessitates a slide downwards to awfulness. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On July 22 2018 02:23 KwarK wrote: It’s absolutely relevant. If your objective is to get the Trump number as low as possible and your options are to modify it by +1, +0, or -1 then anything but -1 isn’t opposition. The statement you were responding to was "I thought this discussion was about people voting for third choices/write-ins/whatever. If you're actively voting Trump you deserve absolute condemnation." You said there's not much of a difference between +1 and 0, but the difference between +1 and 0 is no smaller than the difference between 0 and -1. By your logic, there's not much difference between voting for a third party and voting for trump, since it's the same difference as between voting for Hillary and voting for a third party. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what kollin meant. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42971 Posts
On July 22 2018 02:25 kollin wrote: If your objective is to express yourself within the democratic system as opposed not only to Trump but to Clinton too, and in fact in favour of X candidate - regardless of primaries or whatever - then you don't have a responsibility to vote Clinton. I think, in the situation, I probably would have voted for her myself (if I lived somewhere it even made any difference), but that being said I think people who vote for Trump and people who vote for third parties DO occupy different categories. Different sunsets of people to blame for us being here. That said, I agree that location matters. If they were to say they voted third party because their vote was worthless in FPTP I’d be fine with that. Just not this logic where in a two person race you can support neither and then abdicate responsibility for one winning over the other. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
I do agree going after people who vote third party rather than for your preferred candidate is going to have negative consequences, but as I said before when the alternative is Trump those voters should actually reconsider. | ||
| ||
