|
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 October 27 2026 03:38 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 01:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 26 2026 23:35 oBlade wrote:On October 26 2026 20:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 26 2026 19:34 oBlade wrote:On October 26 2026 05:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Demonstrating your inconsistency when you say that not wanting mail from the government should be a good enough reason not to receive mail from the government. You're right that serving jury duty and paying property taxes are legal obligations, and voting is not, so maybe you should be more careful before making a broad statement that incorporates some things that are mandatory and some things that are optional. You have to pay property taxes. You have to do jury duty (to a point). You do not have to have a driver's license, or a passport card. Therefore, if I don't want the government to send me a passport card in the mail, they won't. Notice people don't die of Republican oppression when the government doesn't automatically (?) send them driver's licenses and passport cards they didn't request. This has nothing to do with sending them regularly vs. sending them once. You cannot send the first voter IDs automagically because they don't exist to begin with. You are stuck on "government sends" because of this OCD shutdown you do of pretending not to understand the point, and getting tunnel vision on one or two words. I do not want the government to create something, a sensitive ID, that I don't want to exist, without me asking for them to make it, and send it to me, without me asking for them to send it, with me having had no part in its creation ("automatically"), and on top of that through first-class mail. This entire discussion is me responding to a question you predicated on an impossibility. I do not receive IDs through first-class mail. I do not get my driver's license, my birth certificate, my passport card, my real ID, through first-class mail. Because I do not want them in the mail and do not request them. You can if you want, it's your own business. In the event I have to send or get my passports, they're always tracked/guaranteed/certified. Similarly, with the free voter ID option, I do not have to receive a mandatory unsolicited ID in order not to disenfranchise an imbecile somewhere. The imbecile can figure out a way to apply for and request their free ID, like voters can do in Georgia and Texas. Their system is good. Your idea wasn't. It sounds like you're very passionate about not wanting a sensitive ID created when you don't think it's necessary. Now, try to have the empathy to realize this exactly applies to eligible voters who have been legally voting without any issues whatsoever, who suddenly might become disenfranchised without the creation of a new sensitive ID that isn't necessary. Correct, it isn't necessary, it's optional. If they don't want to vote, they don't have to get it. Except we're talking about the eligible people that do want to vote, which is why this is disenfranchisement. That's the entire problem with this new, irrelevant "necessity". There's no reason to have it, and the more conditions you add, the more potential voters you push away. None of this matters if you're only considering people who aren't going to vote anyway, or if you're going to shrug off the situation with "well then they just won't vote anymore". That's not okay. It's Completely Okay. If someone doesn't want to vote because they don't get an ID that anyone can get, it's no different than someone who doesn't want to vote because they can't be assed to register to begin with. They are not blocked from voting.
This is not the first time in this conversation that I've said that I'm talking about the people who want to vote, and you've responded that it's fine that they don't want to vote. This is pretty far past you simply not listening; you're now firmly in bad-faith territory.
The reason to have it is it makes elections more secure. Obviously.
Except there's no widespread voter fraud, nor a need for voter ID. But if you're so concerned with this, then here's a better idea to make elections even safer: Republicans should no longer be allowed to vote, run for office, or have any leadership positions that could make it easy for them to tamper with election results (including the presidency). That would be free, that would be automatic, and that would certainly make our elections more secure. That was easy!
Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 01:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Let me put on my empathy cap and put myself in this ID-less person's shoes. I have no bank account because I have no photo ID. I can't buy cigarettes or alcohol or a gun, I'm not in the army, God knows how I signed any contract, and I don't want to learn how to drive, and I don't want to get a passport to be able to leave the country. Wow - I'm grateful the state offers the option of a free photo ID for me to be able to vote. And I'm doubly glad the state secures elections in this way by putting the same requirements on everyone - SOME kind of a choice of various IDs (so it's not additional, people with driver's licenses just already took the steps that are equally necessary for everyone).
The fact that you think there are a bunch of eligible voters who are functionally indistinguishable from ineligible/shouldn't-voters is its own interesting confession about integrity. The difference already exists: being legally registered/able to vote or not being legally registered/able to vote. That's the functional difference because the function is voting. The government already receives this answer, and it's worked fine so far, as is. There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud, so there's no reason to add anything else to the process. You think a system of "Check this box to register to vote if you are eligible to vote" produces the set of people who are legally able to vote. No room for improvement. I got it buddy. Your shtick about Blumpf telling everyone to cheat like hell was never a sincere concern. Look, dogs shouldn't be able to register to vote, and vote. Until you're on board with this, your opinion is performative.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. Are you calling eligible voters "dogs" for not having certain forms of ID, after you just finished calling them "imbeciles"? Or are you literally referring to pet canines, because that would be one heck of a detour from our original conversation. Either way, this sounds like you're having a meltdown - calling people "dogs" is pretty dehumanizing, and obviously actual dogs shouldn't be able to register to vote or actually vote. Your crazy off-topic statements are getting old (should we call this one a "red husky" instead of a "red herring"?), so I'm going to give you the last word, if you want it. I'm finished with this conversation. Have a wonderful day, and please get some rest.
|
It's pretty telling that oblade clearly asked chatgpt to tell him all about the extensive voter fraud going on in the US and all he managed to find was a couple of fringe cases, some not even related to voter ID.
|
On October 27 2026 05:11 Geiko wrote:
It's pretty telling that oblade clearly asked chatgpt to tell him all about the extensive voter fraud going on in the US and all he managed to find was a couple of fringe cases, some not even related to voter ID.
And oBlade never even officially stated that cats, ducks, armadillos, unicorns, trucks, desks, and planets shouldn't be allowed to vote, so oBlade's opinion is performative.
|
On October 27 2026 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 00:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 00:04 Jankisa wrote:On October 26 2026 23:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2026 23:13 Acrofales wrote:On October 26 2026 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Anyone not addicted to engaging oBlade types at length is "weird" around here.
I disagree that it doesn't push the conversation forward. It seems like we've established AOC is the only candidate more progressive than Buttigieg that is actually on the table and that it would take a massive organized effort and a lot of work (comparable to 2016 Bernie) to get her there.
If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!"
So if not AOC, who's your pick for president? And I hope I don't need to specify that I mean someone who isn't a septa or octogenarian, so please don't "feel the Bern"? I said before that AOC is the ostensibly only viable candidate I could see myself supporting for the nomination. It seems that's the only reasonable option for people that want someone progressive/more progressive than Buttigieg. Yup, with Senate being this tight, both Ossoff and Talarico are out of 2028, regardless of that, I don't think either passes the GH sniff test when it comes to progressivism. GH, since you keep on asking us, wouldn't it be fair that you lay out some candidates that you'd like to see run and win the nomination (or go as 3rd party) in your ideal world? I also think I mentioned Liz Warren who is pretty good on anti-trust and a bunch of other very important issues, like M4A, so I'm wondering if you excluded her because you don't like her? To me, she seems fine as well, 8 years younger then Bernie, very similar policies, probably more likely to face less resistance from the establishment dems. + Show Spoiler +On October 26 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:
Or he could carry the White House in an Obama-esque (who also ran for POTUS before finishing his first Senate term) landslide and probably drag a handful more Senate seats with him downballot? What would be dishonest or stupid about that? I mean, Illinois and Texas are very different places, what are the chances that GOP again nominates someone as fucked as Paxton and Dems find someone as tailor made for Texas politics like Talarico. AOC is the best I got for that all things considered. If you are asking about the kind of human being I'd like to see emulated by politicians, I guess people like Charisse Burden-Stelly and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (though socialists don't really think like this) winning would be that for me? Not really a fan of Warren for multiple reasons, but if that's the most progressive viable alternative to Buttigieg (the other consensus [including dyhb] candidate) I could potentially get on board. In a world where Warren wins the Democratic primary and faces a typical Republican nominee (Vance or DeSantis or whoever), would you label your vote for Warren as "the lesser of two evils", or would you consider Warren to be in the positive/good column and not merely a lesser evil? That's not how I look at it at all really. You have to understand that I'm operating in a system where my vote literally isn't counted before the outcome is announced. The fixation on my vote is misguided at best. Okay, could you please clarify then on what you mean when you say you could "get on board" with Warren? Join a united front of international progressives that could exist here in working toward her/the consensus MPVC (Most Progressive Viable Candidate) winning the nomination and then the presidency. Okay thanks. So how did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus?
|
On October 27 2026 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 00:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 00:04 Jankisa wrote:On October 26 2026 23:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2026 23:13 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
So if not AOC, who's your pick for president?
And I hope I don't need to specify that I mean someone who isn't a septa or octogenarian, so please don't "feel the Bern"? I said before that AOC is the ostensibly only viable candidate I could see myself supporting for the nomination. It seems that's the only reasonable option for people that want someone progressive/more progressive than Buttigieg. Yup, with Senate being this tight, both Ossoff and Talarico are out of 2028, regardless of that, I don't think either passes the GH sniff test when it comes to progressivism. GH, since you keep on asking us, wouldn't it be fair that you lay out some candidates that you'd like to see run and win the nomination (or go as 3rd party) in your ideal world? I also think I mentioned Liz Warren who is pretty good on anti-trust and a bunch of other very important issues, like M4A, so I'm wondering if you excluded her because you don't like her? To me, she seems fine as well, 8 years younger then Bernie, very similar policies, probably more likely to face less resistance from the establishment dems. + Show Spoiler +On October 26 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:
Or he could carry the White House in an Obama-esque (who also ran for POTUS before finishing his first Senate term) landslide and probably drag a handful more Senate seats with him downballot? What would be dishonest or stupid about that? I mean, Illinois and Texas are very different places, what are the chances that GOP again nominates someone as fucked as Paxton and Dems find someone as tailor made for Texas politics like Talarico. AOC is the best I got for that all things considered. If you are asking about the kind of human being I'd like to see emulated by politicians, I guess people like Charisse Burden-Stelly and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (though socialists don't really think like this) winning would be that for me? Not really a fan of Warren for multiple reasons, but if that's the most progressive viable alternative to Buttigieg (the other consensus [including dyhb] candidate) I could potentially get on board. In a world where Warren wins the Democratic primary and faces a typical Republican nominee (Vance or DeSantis or whoever), would you label your vote for Warren as "the lesser of two evils", or would you consider Warren to be in the positive/good column and not merely a lesser evil? That's not how I look at it at all really. You have to understand that I'm operating in a system where my vote literally isn't counted before the outcome is announced. The fixation on my vote is misguided at best. Okay, could you please clarify then on what you mean when you say you could "get on board" with Warren? Join a united front of international progressives that could exist here in working toward her/the consensus MPVC (Most Progressive Viable Candidate) winning the nomination and then the presidency. Okay thanks. So how did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus?
You disagreed with the premise of labeling your vote as either of the two options I presented, because your vote is statistically irrelevant based on where you live, so you felt it wasn't meaningful to even bother applying a characterization like "voting for Warren is technically the lesser of two evils" or "voting for Warren is actually a good thing and not just a less-bad thing". And that's totally fine! I know a lot of us have talked in the past about the virtue (or vice) attached to voting for the lesser of two evils, and some related topics, which led me to wonder how you would perceive your hypothetical vote for Warren. (For some people, it would depend on the nuances of her platforms, but obviously she's a capitalist and not a socialist, so I was wondering if you would see things differently.)
|
On October 27 2026 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 00:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 00:04 Jankisa wrote:On October 26 2026 23:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I said before that AOC is the ostensibly only viable candidate I could see myself supporting for the nomination. It seems that's the only reasonable option for people that want someone progressive/more progressive than Buttigieg. Yup, with Senate being this tight, both Ossoff and Talarico are out of 2028, regardless of that, I don't think either passes the GH sniff test when it comes to progressivism. GH, since you keep on asking us, wouldn't it be fair that you lay out some candidates that you'd like to see run and win the nomination (or go as 3rd party) in your ideal world? I also think I mentioned Liz Warren who is pretty good on anti-trust and a bunch of other very important issues, like M4A, so I'm wondering if you excluded her because you don't like her? To me, she seems fine as well, 8 years younger then Bernie, very similar policies, probably more likely to face less resistance from the establishment dems. + Show Spoiler +On October 26 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:
Or he could carry the White House in an Obama-esque (who also ran for POTUS before finishing his first Senate term) landslide and probably drag a handful more Senate seats with him downballot? What would be dishonest or stupid about that? I mean, Illinois and Texas are very different places, what are the chances that GOP again nominates someone as fucked as Paxton and Dems find someone as tailor made for Texas politics like Talarico. AOC is the best I got for that all things considered. If you are asking about the kind of human being I'd like to see emulated by politicians, I guess people like Charisse Burden-Stelly and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (though socialists don't really think like this) winning would be that for me? Not really a fan of Warren for multiple reasons, but if that's the most progressive viable alternative to Buttigieg (the other consensus [including dyhb] candidate) I could potentially get on board. In a world where Warren wins the Democratic primary and faces a typical Republican nominee (Vance or DeSantis or whoever), would you label your vote for Warren as "the lesser of two evils", or would you consider Warren to be in the positive/good column and not merely a lesser evil? That's not how I look at it at all really. You have to understand that I'm operating in a system where my vote literally isn't counted before the outcome is announced. The fixation on my vote is misguided at best. Okay, could you please clarify then on what you mean when you say you could "get on board" with Warren? Join a united front of international progressives that could exist here in working toward her/the consensus MPVC (Most Progressive Viable Candidate) winning the nomination and then the presidency. Okay thanks. So how did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? You disagreed with the premise of labeling your vote as either of the two options I presented, because your vote is statistically irrelevant based on where you live, so you felt it wasn't meaningful to even bother applying a characterization like "voting for Warren is technically the lesser of two evils" or "voting for Warren is actually a good thing and not just a less-bad thing". And that's totally fine! I know a lot of us have talked in the past about the virtue (or vice) attached to voting for the lesser of two evils, and some related topics, which led me to wonder how you would perceive your hypothetical vote for Warren. (For some people, it would depend on the nuances of her platforms, but obviously she's a capitalist and not a socialist, so I was wondering if you would see things differently.)
I would say picking Warren (or AOC or even the fantasy picks) as TL's progressive champion for the 2028 Dem nomination and organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric.
|
On October 27 2026 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 00:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 00:04 Jankisa wrote:[quote] Yup, with Senate being this tight, both Ossoff and Talarico are out of 2028, regardless of that, I don't think either passes the GH sniff test when it comes to progressivism. GH, since you keep on asking us, wouldn't it be fair that you lay out some candidates that you'd like to see run and win the nomination (or go as 3rd party) in your ideal world? I also think I mentioned Liz Warren who is pretty good on anti-trust and a bunch of other very important issues, like M4A, so I'm wondering if you excluded her because you don't like her? To me, she seems fine as well, 8 years younger then Bernie, very similar policies, probably more likely to face less resistance from the establishment dems. + Show Spoiler +On October 26 2026 23:59 LightSpectra wrote:
Or he could carry the White House in an Obama-esque (who also ran for POTUS before finishing his first Senate term) landslide and probably drag a handful more Senate seats with him downballot? What would be dishonest or stupid about that? I mean, Illinois and Texas are very different places, what are the chances that GOP again nominates someone as fucked as Paxton and Dems find someone as tailor made for Texas politics like Talarico. AOC is the best I got for that all things considered. If you are asking about the kind of human being I'd like to see emulated by politicians, I guess people like Charisse Burden-Stelly and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (though socialists don't really think like this) winning would be that for me? Not really a fan of Warren for multiple reasons, but if that's the most progressive viable alternative to Buttigieg (the other consensus [including dyhb] candidate) I could potentially get on board. In a world where Warren wins the Democratic primary and faces a typical Republican nominee (Vance or DeSantis or whoever), would you label your vote for Warren as "the lesser of two evils", or would you consider Warren to be in the positive/good column and not merely a lesser evil? That's not how I look at it at all really. You have to understand that I'm operating in a system where my vote literally isn't counted before the outcome is announced. The fixation on my vote is misguided at best. Okay, could you please clarify then on what you mean when you say you could "get on board" with Warren? Join a united front of international progressives that could exist here in working toward her/the consensus MPVC (Most Progressive Viable Candidate) winning the nomination and then the presidency. Okay thanks. So how did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? You disagreed with the premise of labeling your vote as either of the two options I presented, because your vote is statistically irrelevant based on where you live, so you felt it wasn't meaningful to even bother applying a characterization like "voting for Warren is technically the lesser of two evils" or "voting for Warren is actually a good thing and not just a less-bad thing". And that's totally fine! I know a lot of us have talked in the past about the virtue (or vice) attached to voting for the lesser of two evils, and some related topics, which led me to wonder how you would perceive your hypothetical vote for Warren. (For some people, it would depend on the nuances of her platforms, but obviously she's a capitalist and not a socialist, so I was wondering if you would see things differently.) I would say picking Warren (or AOC or even the fantasy picks) as TL's progressive champion for the 2028 Dem nomination and organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric.
I'm not entirely sure I would agree with the purity test of what constitutes "genuine conviction" for wanting a progressive president, but I agree that organizing / reaching out to potential voters / "walking the walk" (instead of just "talking the talk") on behalf of one's ideal candidate is probably the maximum that most individuals could reasonably do.
|
On October 27 2026 06:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 00:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
AOC is the best I got for that all things considered.
If you are asking about the kind of human being I'd like to see emulated by politicians, I guess people like Charisse Burden-Stelly and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (though socialists don't really think like this) winning would be that for me?
Not really a fan of Warren for multiple reasons, but if that's the most progressive viable alternative to Buttigieg (the other consensus [including dyhb] candidate) I could potentially get on board. In a world where Warren wins the Democratic primary and faces a typical Republican nominee (Vance or DeSantis or whoever), would you label your vote for Warren as "the lesser of two evils", or would you consider Warren to be in the positive/good column and not merely a lesser evil? That's not how I look at it at all really. You have to understand that I'm operating in a system where my vote literally isn't counted before the outcome is announced. The fixation on my vote is misguided at best. Okay, could you please clarify then on what you mean when you say you could "get on board" with Warren? Join a united front of international progressives that could exist here in working toward her/the consensus MPVC (Most Progressive Viable Candidate) winning the nomination and then the presidency. Okay thanks. So how did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? You disagreed with the premise of labeling your vote as either of the two options I presented, because your vote is statistically irrelevant based on where you live, so you felt it wasn't meaningful to even bother applying a characterization like "voting for Warren is technically the lesser of two evils" or "voting for Warren is actually a good thing and not just a less-bad thing". And that's totally fine! I know a lot of us have talked in the past about the virtue (or vice) attached to voting for the lesser of two evils, and some related topics, which led me to wonder how you would perceive your hypothetical vote for Warren. (For some people, it would depend on the nuances of her platforms, but obviously she's a capitalist and not a socialist, so I was wondering if you would see things differently.) I would say picking Warren (or AOC or even the fantasy picks) as TL's progressive champion for the 2028 Dem nomination and organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric. I'm not entirely sure I would agree with the purity test of what constitutes "genuine conviction" for wanting a progressive president, + Show Spoiler +but I agree that organizing / reaching out to potential voters / "walking the walk" (instead of just "talking the talk") on behalf of one's ideal candidate is probably the maximum that most individuals could reasonably do. Well that's an important point of contention. Could you elaborate on why and what alternative (I don't consider it a purity test so much as an electoral reality) you imagine?
|
On October 27 2026 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 06:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
In a world where Warren wins the Democratic primary and faces a typical Republican nominee (Vance or DeSantis or whoever), would you label your vote for Warren as "the lesser of two evils", or would you consider Warren to be in the positive/good column and not merely a lesser evil? That's not how I look at it at all really. You have to understand that I'm operating in a system where my vote literally isn't counted before the outcome is announced. The fixation on my vote is misguided at best. Okay, could you please clarify then on what you mean when you say you could "get on board" with Warren? Join a united front of international progressives that could exist here in working toward her/the consensus MPVC (Most Progressive Viable Candidate) winning the nomination and then the presidency. Okay thanks. So how did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? You disagreed with the premise of labeling your vote as either of the two options I presented, because your vote is statistically irrelevant based on where you live, so you felt it wasn't meaningful to even bother applying a characterization like "voting for Warren is technically the lesser of two evils" or "voting for Warren is actually a good thing and not just a less-bad thing". And that's totally fine! I know a lot of us have talked in the past about the virtue (or vice) attached to voting for the lesser of two evils, and some related topics, which led me to wonder how you would perceive your hypothetical vote for Warren. (For some people, it would depend on the nuances of her platforms, but obviously she's a capitalist and not a socialist, so I was wondering if you would see things differently.) I would say picking Warren (or AOC or even the fantasy picks) as TL's progressive champion for the 2028 Dem nomination and organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric. I'm not entirely sure I would agree with the purity test of what constitutes "genuine conviction" for wanting a progressive president, + Show Spoiler +but I agree that organizing / reaching out to potential voters / "walking the walk" (instead of just "talking the talk") on behalf of one's ideal candidate is probably the maximum that most individuals could reasonably do. Well that's an important point of contention. Could you elaborate on why and what alternative you imagine?
I just think it's a little cavalier to assert that someone isn't sincere in their support of a candidate if they don't do the maximum amount to get their candidate elected. I think it's impressive when people do that, and obviously those who do more will have a greater impact, but I wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome. Something is better than nothing, and different people might have different comfort levels or amounts of time to put towards a campaign.
Edit: I just saw your edit "(I don't consider it a purity test so much as an electoral reality)". I'm not sure what you mean by an "electoral reality" in this case.
|
Pretty big blow for Trump internationally for bolsonaro in Brazil and vucic in Serbia to lose same night. Hopefully that is a positive sign for the elections and MAYBE we are finally starting to see this extremely low IQ right wing populist movement not only lose momentum but move backwards.
|
On October 27 2026 06:50 Billyboy wrote:
Pretty big blow for Trump internationally for bolsonaro in Brazil and vucic in Serbia to lose same night. Hopefully that is a positive sign for the elections and MAYBE we are finally starting to see this extremely low IQ right wing populist movement not only lose momentum but move backwards.
Hopefully. Let's see how the 2026 and 2028 U.S. elections go, too.
|
|
|
On October 27 2026 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's not how I look at it at all really. You have to understand that I'm operating in a system where my vote literally isn't counted before the outcome is announced. The fixation on my vote is misguided at best. Okay, could you please clarify then on what you mean when you say you could "get on board" with Warren? Join a united front of international progressives that could exist here in working toward her/the consensus MPVC (Most Progressive Viable Candidate) winning the nomination and then the presidency. Okay thanks. So how did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? You disagreed with the premise of labeling your vote as either of the two options I presented, because your vote is statistically irrelevant based on where you live, so you felt it wasn't meaningful to even bother applying a characterization like "voting for Warren is technically the lesser of two evils" or "voting for Warren is actually a good thing and not just a less-bad thing". And that's totally fine! I know a lot of us have talked in the past about the virtue (or vice) attached to voting for the lesser of two evils, and some related topics, which led me to wonder how you would perceive your hypothetical vote for Warren. (For some people, it would depend on the nuances of her platforms, but obviously she's a capitalist and not a socialist, so I was wondering if you would see things differently.) I would say picking Warren (or AOC or even the fantasy picks) as TL's progressive champion for the 2028 Dem nomination and organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric. I'm not entirely sure I would agree with the purity test of what constitutes "genuine conviction" for wanting a progressive president, + Show Spoiler +but I agree that organizing / reaching out to potential voters / "walking the walk" (instead of just "talking the talk") on behalf of one's ideal candidate is probably the maximum that most individuals could reasonably do. Well that's an important point of contention. Could you elaborate on why and what alternative you imagine? I just think it's a little cavalier to assert that someone isn't sincere in their support of a candidate if they don't do the maximum amount to get their candidate elected. I think it's impressive when people do that, and obviously those who do more will have a greater impact, but I wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome. Something is better than nothing, and different people might have different comfort levels or amounts of time to put towards a campaign. Edit: I just saw your edit "(I don't consider it a purity test so much as an electoral reality)". I'm not sure what you mean by an "electoral reality" in this case.
We weren't talking about someone's support of a candidate being insincere if they don't do the maximum.
The "maximum" would be far more than using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their progressive goals by choosing a candidate they can collectively organize around (to the extent they reasonably can in their lives/on the forum) to marginally improve that candidate and their progressive convictions chances of success.
A reasonable minimum for having progressive convictions is identifying who that progressive nominee could be and organizing (even if it's just in using a portion of one's TL posting in this case) around them. Otherwise it is basically just "sincere" wishful thinking.
I also "wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome." But in the case of people that think that voting in primaries after a nominee is practically decided is better than nothing, I disagree. It's basically exactly what I was describing earlier:
If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!"
|
On October 27 2026 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Okay, could you please clarify then on what you mean when you say you could "get on board" with Warren? Join a united front of international progressives that could exist here in working toward her/the consensus MPVC (Most Progressive Viable Candidate) winning the nomination and then the presidency. Okay thanks. So how did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? You disagreed with the premise of labeling your vote as either of the two options I presented, because your vote is statistically irrelevant based on where you live, so you felt it wasn't meaningful to even bother applying a characterization like "voting for Warren is technically the lesser of two evils" or "voting for Warren is actually a good thing and not just a less-bad thing". And that's totally fine! I know a lot of us have talked in the past about the virtue (or vice) attached to voting for the lesser of two evils, and some related topics, which led me to wonder how you would perceive your hypothetical vote for Warren. (For some people, it would depend on the nuances of her platforms, but obviously she's a capitalist and not a socialist, so I was wondering if you would see things differently.) I would say picking Warren (or AOC or even the fantasy picks) as TL's progressive champion for the 2028 Dem nomination and organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric. I'm not entirely sure I would agree with the purity test of what constitutes "genuine conviction" for wanting a progressive president, + Show Spoiler +but I agree that organizing / reaching out to potential voters / "walking the walk" (instead of just "talking the talk") on behalf of one's ideal candidate is probably the maximum that most individuals could reasonably do. Well that's an important point of contention. Could you elaborate on why and what alternative you imagine? I just think it's a little cavalier to assert that someone isn't sincere in their support of a candidate if they don't do the maximum amount to get their candidate elected. I think it's impressive when people do that, and obviously those who do more will have a greater impact, but I wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome. Something is better than nothing, and different people might have different comfort levels or amounts of time to put towards a campaign. Edit: I just saw your edit "(I don't consider it a purity test so much as an electoral reality)". I'm not sure what you mean by an "electoral reality" in this case. We weren't talking about someone's support of a candidate being insincere if they don't do the maximum. The "maximum" would be far more than using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their progressive goals by choosing a candidate they can collectively organize around (to the extent they reasonably can in their lives/on the forum) to marginally improve that candidate and their progressive convictions chances of success. A reasonable minimum for having progressive convictions is identifying who that progressive nominee could be and organizing (even if it's just in using a portion of one's TL posting in this case) around them. Otherwise it is basically just "sincere" wishful thinking. I also "wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome." But in the case of people that think that voting in primaries after a nominee is practically decided is better than nothing, I disagree. It's basically exactly what I was describing earlier: Show nested quote +If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!"
All right, I must have misunderstood when you said "organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric". Thanks for the elaboration.
|
On October 27 2026 07:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Join a united front of international progressives that could exist here in working toward her/the consensus MPVC (Most Progressive Viable Candidate) winning the nomination and then the presidency. Okay thanks. So how did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? You disagreed with the premise of labeling your vote as either of the two options I presented, because your vote is statistically irrelevant based on where you live, so you felt it wasn't meaningful to even bother applying a characterization like "voting for Warren is technically the lesser of two evils" or "voting for Warren is actually a good thing and not just a less-bad thing". And that's totally fine! I know a lot of us have talked in the past about the virtue (or vice) attached to voting for the lesser of two evils, and some related topics, which led me to wonder how you would perceive your hypothetical vote for Warren. (For some people, it would depend on the nuances of her platforms, but obviously she's a capitalist and not a socialist, so I was wondering if you would see things differently.) I would say picking Warren (or AOC or even the fantasy picks) as TL's progressive champion for the 2028 Dem nomination and organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric. I'm not entirely sure I would agree with the purity test of what constitutes "genuine conviction" for wanting a progressive president, + Show Spoiler +but I agree that organizing / reaching out to potential voters / "walking the walk" (instead of just "talking the talk") on behalf of one's ideal candidate is probably the maximum that most individuals could reasonably do. Well that's an important point of contention. Could you elaborate on why and what alternative you imagine? I just think it's a little cavalier to assert that someone isn't sincere in their support of a candidate if they don't do the maximum amount to get their candidate elected. I think it's impressive when people do that, and obviously those who do more will have a greater impact, but I wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome. Something is better than nothing, and different people might have different comfort levels or amounts of time to put towards a campaign. Edit: I just saw your edit "(I don't consider it a purity test so much as an electoral reality)". I'm not sure what you mean by an "electoral reality" in this case. We weren't talking about someone's support of a candidate being insincere if they don't do the maximum. The "maximum" would be far more than using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their progressive goals by choosing a candidate they can collectively organize around (to the extent they reasonably can in their lives/on the forum) to marginally improve that candidate and their progressive convictions chances of success. A reasonable minimum for having progressive convictions is identifying who that progressive nominee could be and organizing (even if it's just in using a portion of one's TL posting in this case) around them. Otherwise it is basically just "sincere" wishful thinking. I also "wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome." But in the case of people that think that voting in primaries after a nominee is practically decided is better than nothing, I disagree. It's basically exactly what I was describing earlier: If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!" All right, I must have misunderstood when you said "organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric". Thanks for the elaboration.
I'd prefer I didn't have to ask this but: How did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus?
|
On October 27 2026 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 07:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Okay thanks. So how did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? You disagreed with the premise of labeling your vote as either of the two options I presented, because your vote is statistically irrelevant based on where you live, so you felt it wasn't meaningful to even bother applying a characterization like "voting for Warren is technically the lesser of two evils" or "voting for Warren is actually a good thing and not just a less-bad thing". And that's totally fine! I know a lot of us have talked in the past about the virtue (or vice) attached to voting for the lesser of two evils, and some related topics, which led me to wonder how you would perceive your hypothetical vote for Warren. (For some people, it would depend on the nuances of her platforms, but obviously she's a capitalist and not a socialist, so I was wondering if you would see things differently.) I would say picking Warren (or AOC or even the fantasy picks) as TL's progressive champion for the 2028 Dem nomination and organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric. I'm not entirely sure I would agree with the purity test of what constitutes "genuine conviction" for wanting a progressive president, + Show Spoiler +but I agree that organizing / reaching out to potential voters / "walking the walk" (instead of just "talking the talk") on behalf of one's ideal candidate is probably the maximum that most individuals could reasonably do. Well that's an important point of contention. Could you elaborate on why and what alternative you imagine? I just think it's a little cavalier to assert that someone isn't sincere in their support of a candidate if they don't do the maximum amount to get their candidate elected. I think it's impressive when people do that, and obviously those who do more will have a greater impact, but I wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome. Something is better than nothing, and different people might have different comfort levels or amounts of time to put towards a campaign. Edit: I just saw your edit "(I don't consider it a purity test so much as an electoral reality)". I'm not sure what you mean by an "electoral reality" in this case. We weren't talking about someone's support of a candidate being insincere if they don't do the maximum. The "maximum" would be far more than using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their progressive goals by choosing a candidate they can collectively organize around (to the extent they reasonably can in their lives/on the forum) to marginally improve that candidate and their progressive convictions chances of success. A reasonable minimum for having progressive convictions is identifying who that progressive nominee could be and organizing (even if it's just in using a portion of one's TL posting in this case) around them. Otherwise it is basically just "sincere" wishful thinking. I also "wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome." But in the case of people that think that voting in primaries after a nominee is practically decided is better than nothing, I disagree. It's basically exactly what I was describing earlier: If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!" All right, I must have misunderstood when you said "organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric". Thanks for the elaboration. I'd prefer I didn't have to ask this but: How did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus?
I understand what you consider to be a reasonable minimum amount of effort, what more you think people ought to do, and what you think isn't good enough. That gives me more perspective and context for our future conversations, but I can't say for sure how/if it'll affect how I eventually approach the 2028 election.
|
On October 27 2026 07:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 07:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]So how did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus?
You disagreed with the premise of labeling your vote as either of the two options I presented, because your vote is statistically irrelevant based on where you live, so you felt it wasn't meaningful to even bother applying a characterization like "voting for Warren is technically the lesser of two evils" or "voting for Warren is actually a good thing and not just a less-bad thing". And that's totally fine! I know a lot of us have talked in the past about the virtue (or vice) attached to voting for the lesser of two evils, and some related topics, which led me to wonder how you would perceive your hypothetical vote for Warren. (For some people, it would depend on the nuances of her platforms, but obviously she's a capitalist and not a socialist, so I was wondering if you would see things differently.) I would say picking Warren (or AOC or even the fantasy picks) as TL's progressive champion for the 2028 Dem nomination and organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric. I'm not entirely sure I would agree with the purity test of what constitutes "genuine conviction" for wanting a progressive president, + Show Spoiler +but I agree that organizing / reaching out to potential voters / "walking the walk" (instead of just "talking the talk") on behalf of one's ideal candidate is probably the maximum that most individuals could reasonably do. Well that's an important point of contention. Could you elaborate on why and what alternative you imagine? I just think it's a little cavalier to assert that someone isn't sincere in their support of a candidate if they don't do the maximum amount to get their candidate elected. I think it's impressive when people do that, and obviously those who do more will have a greater impact, but I wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome. Something is better than nothing, and different people might have different comfort levels or amounts of time to put towards a campaign. Edit: I just saw your edit "(I don't consider it a purity test so much as an electoral reality)". I'm not sure what you mean by an "electoral reality" in this case. We weren't talking about someone's support of a candidate being insincere if they don't do the maximum. The "maximum" would be far more than using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their progressive goals by choosing a candidate they can collectively organize around (to the extent they reasonably can in their lives/on the forum) to marginally improve that candidate and their progressive convictions chances of success. A reasonable minimum for having progressive convictions is identifying who that progressive nominee could be and organizing (even if it's just in using a portion of one's TL posting in this case) around them. Otherwise it is basically just "sincere" wishful thinking. I also "wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome." But in the case of people that think that voting in primaries after a nominee is practically decided is better than nothing, I disagree. It's basically exactly what I was describing earlier: If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!" All right, I must have misunderstood when you said "organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric". Thanks for the elaboration. I'd prefer I didn't have to ask this but: How did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? I understand what you consider to be a reasonable minimum amount of effort, what more you think people ought to do, and what you think isn't good enough. That gives me more perspective and context for our future conversations, but I can't say for sure how/if it'll affect how I eventually approach the 2028 election.
You do recognize the superficialness/futility (based on the system/order) in structuring ones involvement in Democrats nominating the MPVC around voting in a NJ (or similarly situated) primary then, correct?
|
On October 27 2026 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 07:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 07:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
You disagreed with the premise of labeling your vote as either of the two options I presented, because your vote is statistically irrelevant based on where you live, so you felt it wasn't meaningful to even bother applying a characterization like "voting for Warren is technically the lesser of two evils" or "voting for Warren is actually a good thing and not just a less-bad thing". And that's totally fine! I know a lot of us have talked in the past about the virtue (or vice) attached to voting for the lesser of two evils, and some related topics, which led me to wonder how you would perceive your hypothetical vote for Warren. (For some people, it would depend on the nuances of her platforms, but obviously she's a capitalist and not a socialist, so I was wondering if you would see things differently.) I would say picking Warren (or AOC or even the fantasy picks) as TL's progressive champion for the 2028 Dem nomination and organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric. I'm not entirely sure I would agree with the purity test of what constitutes "genuine conviction" for wanting a progressive president, + Show Spoiler +but I agree that organizing / reaching out to potential voters / "walking the walk" (instead of just "talking the talk") on behalf of one's ideal candidate is probably the maximum that most individuals could reasonably do. Well that's an important point of contention. Could you elaborate on why and what alternative you imagine? I just think it's a little cavalier to assert that someone isn't sincere in their support of a candidate if they don't do the maximum amount to get their candidate elected. I think it's impressive when people do that, and obviously those who do more will have a greater impact, but I wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome. Something is better than nothing, and different people might have different comfort levels or amounts of time to put towards a campaign. Edit: I just saw your edit "(I don't consider it a purity test so much as an electoral reality)". I'm not sure what you mean by an "electoral reality" in this case. We weren't talking about someone's support of a candidate being insincere if they don't do the maximum. The "maximum" would be far more than using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their progressive goals by choosing a candidate they can collectively organize around (to the extent they reasonably can in their lives/on the forum) to marginally improve that candidate and their progressive convictions chances of success. A reasonable minimum for having progressive convictions is identifying who that progressive nominee could be and organizing (even if it's just in using a portion of one's TL posting in this case) around them. Otherwise it is basically just "sincere" wishful thinking. I also "wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome." But in the case of people that think that voting in primaries after a nominee is practically decided is better than nothing, I disagree. It's basically exactly what I was describing earlier: If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!" All right, I must have misunderstood when you said "organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric". Thanks for the elaboration. I'd prefer I didn't have to ask this but: How did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? I understand what you consider to be a reasonable minimum amount of effort, what more you think people ought to do, and what you think isn't good enough. That gives me more perspective and context for our future conversations, but I can't say for sure how/if it'll affect how I eventually approach the 2028 election. You do recognize the superficialness/futility (based on the system/order) in structuring ones involvement in Democrats nominating the MPVC around voting in a NJ (or similarly situated) primary then, correct?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that since New Jersey is more blue than the average state, using it as a litmus test for how well the most progressive candidate would perform across all 50 states probably isn't going to lead to accurate, generalizable results? (If that's what you mean, then: I'm aware of that. I'll still obviously be voting in New Jersey, but it could make more sense for any New Jerseyans who want to get involved to think about persuading voters in other states too. If I'm misunderstanding your point, then please clarify.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
