Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://m.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpS...final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is_a/

i doubt the children of this thread, whom i am hoping are lying about their voting age, will make it past the title tbqh.
You do realize that Hillary also supported the patriot act and endorsed the iraq war, right? She also can be partially blamed for the thousands of drone strikes on civilians. Basically the worst things Trump could do, Hillary can simply do worse.

So, apparently we're left with 2 facists, right? And according to the DNC e-mail leaks, the democratic party is to blame.

Also, Julian Assange admitted that he doesn't want her as a president because "she will push the U.S into endless, stupid wars that spread terrorism."

observer.com/2016/06/why-julian-assange-doesnt-want-hillary-clinton-to-be-president/
 
Bughouse

Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, and Bush Sr appointed two justices each.

Surely the two Republican presidents appointed conservative judges that would have the same effect as the conservative judges that would be appointed by Trump, or perhaps better put the Republicans, and the Democrats appointed liberal judges who would have the same effect as the liberal judges Clinton would appoint.

So how have Bush Jr and Bush Sr's two appointments negatively affected supreme court rulings? In other words, how have Sameul Alito, John Roberts, David Scouter, and Clarence Thomas themselves specifically resulted in negative (e.g., regressive) rulings? How have Obama's and Clinton's appointment positively affected supreme court rulings? Again, in other words, how have Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Ginsburg themselves specificially resulted in positive (e.g., progressive) rulings?

I don't disagree that the justices are important. I just disagree they are important enough to provide support for Clinton. Thus far, claims have been made, but no evidence provided.

Aldaron

What is your criticism of Thoreau? Have you even read any of Thoreau's works? Do you think his works are no longer relevant? Expressing exasperation over quoting Thoreau, or calling him "big man", aren't very meaningful criticisms, I think.

As far as that excerpt, Thoreau is arguing against those who actively or passively enable injustice, but feign otherwise with such meaningless efforts as a vote or a petition. Maybe the next passage would help:

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail.
So are you going to take effort to counteract the negative aspects (e.g., her economic policy, her foreign policy) of voting for Clinton? I fear there's quite a lot you'd have to do, if you even think she does much wrong at all...

And you might want to read 'Civil Disobedience'. The Civil Rights movement was successful because of organized, planned acts of civil disobedience. However, the most protests have done since is very little, such as Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wallstreet recently, because while their message may be true, they are poorly planned and poorly organized, and often enough counter-productive as a result.

If a fraction of Sanders supporters practiced organized, planned acts of civil disobedience, a lot could could be accomplished, much more than voting could ever do. Of course, I fear most Sanders supporters didn't even bother to vote in the primaries.
 
Last edited:

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
So how have Bush Jr and Bush Sr's two appointments negatively affected supreme court rulings? In other words, how have Sameul Alito, John Roberts, David Scouter, and Clarence Thomas themselves specifically resulted in negative (e.g., regressive) rulings? How have Obama's and Clinton's appointment positively affected supreme court rulings? Again, in other words, how have Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Ginsburg themselves specificially resulted in positive (e.g., progressive) rulings?
Bughouse specifically mentioned the citizens United case in which the first 4+Kennedy ruled in favor of Citizens United. This split with Kennedy as the swing is consistent across pretty much every major controversial ruling. Obamas health care reform was ruled constitutional 6-3 (liberal 4, Kennedy, Roberts), gay marriage as a constitutional right 5-4 (liberal 4 + Kennedy), Texas state law declaring that in order to offer abortion services clinics had to meet xyz standards (none of which increased the safety of said services), making abortions essentially impossible to obtain for a significant majority of women in the state was overturned 5-3 (liberal 4 + Kennedy). Idk if you were being intentionally obtuse because you feel bughouse's post didn't give enough info or if you actually just don't follow the Supreme Court that closely but a quick Google search could have easily answered this question for you. Obviously which side you agree with will affect which side is "positive" but considering bughouse was arguing for the more liberal candidate, he views the liberal policies as positive, as would a Sanders supporter, which was aldaron's point. At the end of the day not voting anyone for president is your prerogative, but not caring enough to vote on someone who will have the opportunity to appoint 2 people who will have a huge impact on the direction of this country for 10-20 years is hardly something to be smug about. And aldaron's characterization of this election, that at the end of the day it's about getting good Supreme Court justices is absolutely accurate.
 
Last edited:

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Yeah I mean it comes down to what you actually support, but if you like Bernie, then you like the liberal justices' positions.

Justices aren't purely political beings and have nuanced beliefs, like Scalia was probably better for prisoners' rights than Breyer, but then again Breyer wants to eliminate the death penalty, which Scalia would have said is ridiculous. So I can't 100% say a Clinton justice will rule on everything as Bernie would want and a Trump justice would do the reverse.

But this is overwhelmingly true. I can happily point you to more specific cases, veiva, if you need. But the topics I mentioned are all topics that come to the Supreme Court all the time and often split on pure "party" lines.
 
I find it ridiculous to make a claim and expect the other party to essentially find the evidence themselves. A single ruling (Citizen's United) was not a satisfactory example when there have been a great many.

My question was specifically how Obama and Clinton's choices resulted in favorable rulings, and how specifically Bush and Bush's resulted in unfavorable rulings. You answered it. Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
What is your criticism of Thoreau? Have you even read any of Thoreau's works? Do you think his works are no longer relevant? Expressing exasperation over quoting Thoreau, or calling him "big man", aren't very meaningful criticisms, I think.
I have lots of criticisms of Thoreau, but none directly relevant to what you quoted. Both the "expressing exasperation" and "calling him 'big man'" were completely facetious lol.

As far as that excerpt, Thoreau is arguing against those who actively or passively enable injustice, but feign otherwise with such meaningless efforts as a vote or a petition.
Yes, that is how I read as well, except for the latter part where you state "meaningless efforts as a vote". I don't believe a vote is ever meaningless. If Thoreau ever meant this truly in a vacuum, I would criticize him sharply for it.

I take the interpretation that he simply means a vote can be a meaningless effort if also accompanied by the enabling of injustice. In relevance to our debate veiva, no where do I see either 1.) myself claiming or even implying I enable injustice 2.) That even if I assume you are not enabling injustice, veiva, that your vote is meaningless.

Just because you take concentrated effort to prevent injustice does not mean you can also call a particular vote meaningless. You are fighting injustice; great on you. We need more people like you. This doesn't mean that just because you are fighting injustice that you shouldn't see the practicality of voting a particular way in a presidential election where things other than simply the presidency are affected.

Maybe the next passage would help:

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail.

So are you going to take effort to counteract the negative aspects (e.g., her economic policy, her foreign policy) of voting for Clinton? I fear there's quite a lot you'd have to do, if you even think she does much wrong at all...
I have plenty of criticism of this passage and frankly find it ridiculous. Anyone who says "but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail." is touched in the head and not in touch with, you know, the real world. I enjoy Thoreau for a lot of what he means to critical criticisms of government overall, but he has a lot of specific quotes that are mind-numbing.

And I again do not see how anything justifies not casting a meaningful vote just because you take action to prevent injustice elsewhere. Thoreau says he couldn't give a damn about what is right and so you follow suit? Really?

Why can't you do a lot to fight injustice AND cast a meaningful vote? Why does fighting injustice default it to being ok to not cast a meaningful vote?

And you might want to read 'Civil Disobedience'. The Civil Rights movement was successful because of organized, planned acts of civil disobedience. However, the most protests have done since is very little, such as Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wallstreet recently, because while their message may be true, they are poorly planned and poorly organized, and often enough counter-productive as a result.
Sure, civil disobedience, done right, can do a lot. I again fail to see how this justifies not casting meaningful votes.

If a fraction of Sanders supporters practiced organized, planned acts of civil disobedience, a lot could could be accomplished, much more than voting could ever do. Of course, I fear most Sanders supporters didn't even bother to vote in the primaries.
Again sure, potentially true statement. What does this have to do with casting meaningful votes?[/quote]


Remember veiva, we have two separate lines of debate occurring simultaneously...1.) via your Thoreau quotes, "should a vote be meaningless" 2.) whether or not a vote in this election is meaningless

My responses in this post were mostly addressing 1, not 2. I have to specify this because I feel you might reference 2 in response to my statements.
 
Part of me feels like this thread has turned from "election debate" into " Aldaron roasts everybody on political issues"


Either way it's very entertaining to watch.

Also probably gna bet that if Clinton gets elected the senate will confirm Garland
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
I'm really not roasting anyone -_-

Well besides that dude that who bashed the Michelle Obama speech (because lol, let's be real, that kid has clearly deepthroated some koolaid so hard he's upchucking red all day errday) and that dude who tried to turn his severe lack of knowledge of what goes into Google searches into some poorly informed criticism of what was showing up for his search

I have nothing against veiva just responding to his quotes
 
Again, have you actually read any of Thoreau's works? Even just Walden or Civil Disobedience? Thoreau believed voting useless; that's a bulk of Civil Disobedience. I agree in most part--voting alone is pointless, action is not, voting with action is good. Essentially, if you have a set of beliefs and refuse to live by them, then why bother having those beliefs at all?

Regarding the second excerpt: the first-person is not Thoreau literally speaking for himself, it's him speaking more generally as the abolitionists and anti-war men who vote all the while supporting the government, and in turn, the Mexican-American War and slavery. You can read Civil Disobedience slowly and it still only takes 20 minutes; it's not very dense or flowery, really.

To be blunt, the policies "we" (i.e., the average American) want have no bearing on what policies are actually passed, while the policies the wealthiest American want actually do, so I don't see how voting can actually be said to proven to have much an effect. I wouldn't be surprised if prayer had more an effect, as a placebo...

edit: I'd like to add it's not that I necessarily think Aldaron (and Bughouse, etc) are wrong in any objective sense, it's just that I don't agree. There is not an absolute answer when considering whether or not to vote for someone you don't support because of other valid reasons (e.g., a Trump presidency, or the supreme court justice appointments).
 
Last edited:

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Again, have you actually read any of Thoreau's works? Even just Walden or Civil Disobedience? Thoreau believed voting useless; that's a bulk of Civil Disobedience. I agree in most part--voting alone is pointless, action is not, voting with action is good. Essentially, if you have a set of beliefs and refuse to live by them, then why bother having those beliefs at all?
Why does it matter whether or not anyone has read them? You took quotes...I am judging the merits of those quotes. If Thoreau hated voting...great.

My whole point in responding to your quotes here is that no one is saying only vote lol. You are the one assuming that our votes are meaningless because you are assuming we will not take action.

My whole point is also that if you do that action, that doesn't default you from being alright with not making a meaningful vote. You can take action AND make a meaningful vote.

I could care less about Thoreau's issues with voting; the take away from Thoreau is: think for yourself, don't be brainwashed, and do meaningful shit.

Regarding the second excerpt: the first-person is not Thoreau literally speaking for himself, it's him speaking more generally as the abolitionists and anti-war men who vote all the while supporting the government, and in turn, the Mexican-American War and slavery. You can read Civil Disobedience slowly and it still only takes 20 minutes; it's not very dense or flowery, really.
Again, I don't see why reading Civil Disobedience is important to anything here.

I am directly saying take action and make a meaningful vote. That has nothing to do with Thoreau or Civil Disobedience or anything; I am merely saying that if Thoreau says a vote is always meaningless, he's delusional...or if he is saying taking action allows you to cast meaningless votes, he's delusional.

I also don't give two fucks about Thoreau....and I'm not sure why you keep bringing up his works. You quoted him and I responded to those quotes.

To be blunt, the policies "we" (i.e., the average American) want have no bearing on what policies are actually passed, while the policies the wealthiest American want actually do, so I don't see how voting can actually be said to proven to have much an effect. I wouldn't be surprised if prayer had more an effect, as a placebo...
That's a separate debate to be had.
 

Bass

Brother in arms
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
Skimmed this thread again, responded to a few tidbits that piqued my interest.

I don't understand how you could be a Bernie supporter and not left wing. The guy is literally a socialist and the most left wing candidate to ever run for President o_0
Because maybe it never occurred to you that politics isn't always black and white? For example, Bernie's positions on the right to privacy, foreign policy, and the war on drugs are actually very libertarian. Or take the issue of money in politics, which is bipartisan in nature. And of course populism by nature has a more natural appeal to conservative voters who are less trustful of the government and the establishment by their nature. I have met people that claimed to be lifelong Republicans but supported Bernie, despite disagreeing with him on some of his positions on the economy.

What shitstorm is the DNC in lol?

The leaked emails just show that the chair needs to be canned for bias? Which..she is...
It's true that Sanders supporters have known since day 1 that the DNC has been biased in favor of Clinton. But the issue isn't just whether party officials had personal opinions in favor of one candidate or the other, it's whether they were using party infrastructure to increase the odds of Clinton winning. Some of of e-mails had shown that this was precisely the case, and that is the sort of action that isn't acceptable.

The bernie supporters yelled and cried a bit? Who threatened to vote for Jill Stein but almost everyone knows will, in the overwhelming majority, vote for the DNC nominee in November?

What I took away from last night is that Michelle Obama is a fucking god damned KING and I can't wait to see what she does in the future lol.

I'm really curious if the right-wingers in this topic are truly so deluded to believe that the majority of bernie or bust supporters aren't aware enough of the importance of the supreme court seats to eventually vote for hillary in November lol...regardless of how much they yell now and threaten to vote for Jill Stein.

This presidential election is all about suffering your party's nomination for the next 4-8 years to secure 30-50 years of 1-3 supreme court seats as well looking towards the future of the parties.

And I'm very very very thankful that Michelle Obama will probably be in the future of mine :)
Sometimes I say that supporters of establishment Democrats live in a bubble, and this post is a prime example. I mean, the RNC was certainly a shitshow in certain ways, but you're the one that's being delusional. Not that I blame you since the mainstream media outlets will do everything they can to make you think that everything is peachy. Go ahead and not be alarmed by the fact that Trump has surged ahead of Clinton in the polling averages since the email leak, or that many Sanders delegates walked out of the convention? I mean, you can easily dismiss these people as merely being the most vocal supporters, but if Clinton fails to significantly bounce post-convention, will you say otherwise?

But what really bothers me about this post is you are being so utterly dismissive of independent voters. Once again, assuming that Clinton will just automatically get enough former Sanders supporters to vote for her is extremely arrogant and dismissive of the agony that we have felt; the frustration of being forced into voting for the lesser of the two evils or "throwing away" your vote to a third party candidate you actually like. Personally, I can't fucking stand it. In 2016 the largest share of voters will not be affiliated with any party, yet because of our media and election laws, they have historically had no choice but to fall in line. When a candidate by the name of Bernie Sanders finally attempted to break this gridlock, democratic primary voters decided to squander such a huge opportunity and go with the supposedly "safer" candidate. It's frustrating, and it's disheartening. That is why Sanders supporters are disrupting the convention. Personally I am sick and tired of our country treating politics like a spectator sport where both sides are fear mongering and mudslinging each other rather than having substantive conversations on the fucking issues.

Sure but, again...I never said it was the only metric or even a determining one...And iiirc, didn't someone show they voted similarly like 94+% of the time or something? I'm not sure on this so please feel free to fact check and post (as I'm sure you will).
I have already stated this in my previous post, but that statistic is sort of a red herring. Sanders and Clinton agree almost 100% on social issues as nearly all democrats do. Yawn. It's easy to get caught up in this considering both parties distinguish themselves primarily on the social issues, but here is the thing you are missing. Sanders wasn't bought. He ran a campaign on mostly small individual contributions and railed against a political system which gives the wealthy a disproportionate say on policy issues. If that weren't the case, many of the other policies proposed by Sanders which are standard in many other industrialized countries wouldn't be embarrassingly dismissed as radical. Instead of forcing Sanders to give a hollow endorsement, Clinton and the Democratic Party should have considered on how to incorporate this ideology into their platform and make money in politics a front and center issue for the party moving forward, especially when their opponent is an "outsider" like Trump. Instead, they have decided to play politics as usual between their VP pick and their handling of this e-mail scandal.
I'm sure they do! Again, the main, underlying point is that bernie supporters have more in common with hillary than trump...you're welcome to argue that if you wish.
Nobody is arguing that on the sheer quantity of issues, Clinton and Sanders indeed have more in common. But the few positions that Trump and Sanders have in common (most notably on the TPP) might be significant enough to outweigh that for some voters. Although that isn't the case for me personally, it is a major reason why I find this talking point to be extremely grating as a Sanders supporter nonetheless. We've heard it a million times, and it's not going to convince any Sanders supporters into supporting Clinton that haven't already, and it's something most of us were aware of since the beginning of the primary. It's literally an insult to our intelligence.
 
Last edited:

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Sometimes I say that supporters of establishment Democrats live in a bubble, and this is a prime example. I mean, the RNC was certainly a shitshow in certain ways, but you're the one that's being delusional. Not that I blame you since the mainstream media outlets will do everything they can to make you think that everything is peachy. Go ahead and not be alarmed by the fact that Trump has surged ahead of Clinton in the polling averages since the email leak, or that many Sanders delegates walked out of the convention? I mean, you can easily dismiss these people as merely being the most vocal supporters, but if Clinton fails to significantly bounce post-convention, will you say otherwise?

But what really bothers me about this post is you are being so utterly dismissive of independent voters. Once again, assuming that Clinton will just automatically get enough former Sanders supporters to vote for her is extremely arrogant and dismissive of the agony that we have felt; the frustration of being forced into voting for the lesser of the two evils or "throwing away" your vote to a third party candidate you actually like. Personally, I can't fucking stand it. In 2016 the largest share of voters will not be affiliated with any party, yet because of our media and election laws, they have historically had no choice but to fall in line. When a candidate by the name of Bernie Sanders finally attempted to break this gridlock, democratic primary voters decided to squander such a huge opportunity and go with the supposedly "safer" candidate. It's frustrating, and it's disheartening. That is why Sanders supporters are disrupting the convention. Personally I am sick and tired of our country treating politics like a spectator sport where both sides are fear mongering and mudslinging each other rather than having substantive conversations on the fucking issues.
I dunno where you got these paragraphs from. I'm not a hillary supporter lol, nor do I feel clinton has this in the bag, nor am I not concerned with clinton securing the majority of sanders supporters.

All I've been saying this whole time is that the presidential election is about far more than just the presidency (the supreme court for example), and that you should eventually, come November make a vote that is meaningful. That means if I have to grudgingly cast a hillary vote...I am going to. That doesn't mean I believe (or have ever stated) that anything is peachy, or that I am not alarmed by various current polls, or that sanders delegates walked out.

The "Who threatened to vote for Jill Stein but almost everyone knows will, in the overwhelming majority, vote for the DNC nominee in November?" I've already mentioned was a mostly tongue-in-cheek facetious question, not meant to be taken serious. Seems like lots of people take everything I say super seriously though so I figure this should be repeated in case you missed that clarification (which it looks like you did).

I'm also not dismissive at all of independent votes...I'm simply saying their time to fight and act all indignant should be 4 the years between elections, not after their candidate lost. Be angry sure that the DP chose the wrong VP candidate, but recognize that the presidency is about far more than the presidency and that making your vote as meaningful as possible in november is very important. And then continue fighting as much possible so that hopefully real change can happen in the following 4-8 years.

I am also not assuming she will get them (you), just hoping. I am anecdotally seeing that the majority of sanders supporters I know are hating Hillary atm but also begrudgingly admitting they will probably vote for her in November. And yes, I do believe that the majority of Bernie voters will recognize that the presidency is about more than the presidency and will eventually vote for clinton, but that doesn't mean I am being dismissive of them at all lol.

The time for hating the system and the party is the 4 years in between elections...I'm not saying you shouldn't be upset, or that it isn't a travesty that clinton picked ho-hum joe schmo instead of a more progressive candidate...just that you have to eventually recognize the presidency is about far more than just the presidency and eventually cast a meaningful vote.

I have no idea where you're getting I'm delusional from lol but you're welcome to your arbitrary conclusions (as this seems to be a common pattern in regards this particular election). Literally nothing you claimed I am I have stated which is really really amusing to me...
 

Bass

Brother in arms
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
I dunno where you got these paragraphs from. I'm not a hillary supporter lol, nor do I feel clinton has this in the bag, nor am I not concerned with clinton securing the majority of sanders supporters.

All I've been saying this whole time is that the presidential election is about far more than just the presidency (the supreme court for example), and that you should eventually, come November make a vote that is meaningful. That means if I have to grudgingly cast a hillary vote...I am going to. That doesn't mean I believe (or have ever stated) that anything is peachy, or that I am not alarmed by various current polls, or that sanders delegates walked out.

The "Who threatened to vote for Jill Stein but almost everyone knows will, in the overwhelming majority, vote for the DNC nominee in November?" I've already mentioned was a mostly tongue-in-cheek facetious question, not meant to be taken serious. Seems like lots of people take everything I say super seriously though so I figure this should be repeated in case you missed that clarification (which it looks like you did).

I'm also not dismissive at all of independent votes...I'm simply saying their time to fight and act all indignant should be 4 the years between elections, not after their candidate lost. Be angry sure that the DP chose the wrong VP candidate, but recognize that the presidency is about far more than the presidency and that making your vote as meaningful as possible in november is very important. And then continue fighting as much possible so that hopefully real change can happen in the following 4-8 years.

I am also not assuming she will get them (you), just hoping. I am anecdotally seeing that the majority of sanders supporters I know are hating Hillary atm but also begrudgingly admitting they will probably vote for her in November. And yes, I do believe that the majority of Bernie voters will recognize that the presidency is about more than the presidency and will eventually vote for clinton, but that doesn't mean I am being dismissive of them at all lol.

The time for hating the system and the party is the 4 years in between elections...I'm not saying you shouldn't be upset, or that it isn't a travesty that clinton picked ho-hum joe schmo instead of a more progressive candidate...just that you have to eventually recognize the presidency is about far more than just the presidency and eventually cast a meaningful vote.

I have no idea where you're getting I'm delusional from lol but you're welcome to your arbitrary conclusions (as this seems to be a common pattern in regards this particular election). Literally nothing you claimed I am I have stated which is really really amusing to me...
If most of your post was sarcasm then I apologize since it often flies over my head, despite me knowing you for as long as I have. It's just that I am very used to seeing so many other people that are shamelessly shilling for the democratic party and are insisting everything is fine, that Sanders supporters will all fall in line, that the important aspect of this email scandal is that it could have been done by the Russians instead of addressing the content of the emails, etc). It's the same kind of "delusional" that lead to so many people voting for Clinton in the primary over this assumption that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, she was this invincible, unbeatable candidate that was far more electable than some crazy old socialist from Vermont.

But while you go on to criticize me for ignoring or misinterpreting your posts, it seems you are doing the same with mine. Personally, I actually agree with your assessment regarding the Supreme Court, and that there is too much at stake for me to allow a Republican to win in 2016. The point of my post was to point out that droning on about what has literally amounted to talking points among individuals attempting to convince Sanders supporters to back Clinton won't win anyone over. Again, we already fucking know about the consequences of a Trump presidency as well as which issues each candidate have in common with Sanders, captain obvious. I have thought about such and would vote Clinton for sure if I lived in a swing state. But that's just me. Everyone has their own reasons for voting for a candidate, so don't condescendingly tell people to support Clinton just because the alternative is Trump. I think that Democrats will need to take some bold actions in the remaining 4 months, and fast, if they want to safely win in 2016.
 

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
I think we can all agree Hillary has work to do, sure. The VP pick was a bust and the DNC emails didn't help. I don't think either of those two are too hard to recover from though, and you can call me delusional here, but I have to assume with 3-4 months left SOME of the top brass at the DP will be able to do some things to try and appease the majority of Bernie supporters (and if not appease, at least making voting for Hillary tolerable).

I still stand by my point that the presidency is more than just the presidency, that that more part is worth casting a meaningful vote, and that people should try their best to cast meaningful votes. I see no reason why working hard to change the system and acting towards meaningful change should be separate from also casting a meaningful vote (just referencing the civil disobedience stuff from earlier).

If you want to take that as condescending, that's your prerogative. I can't really argue that I was or wasn't condescending because I'm always sarcastic / prodding people but what is just light-hearted banter for me ends up insulting others so let's go with

TL;DR - I think making meaningful votes in November is more important than voting strictly and only by some stringent / uncompromising set of principles because the presidency is about more than just the presidency. Fighting to change the system should occur during the 4 years between elections, not after your candidate has lost and you might fracture the party that is closer to you.
 

Pyritie

TAMAGO
is an Artist
Came across this post a today morning. succinctly sums up a surprising perspective.


I'm confused. Has he ever voted before? Does he seriously believe there are people at voting booths who will force you to vote a certain way, and that they can connect your vote with your identity?

Or is he just fishing for internet points by making a jab at white people again, like all the other cool kids are doing these days?
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I think we can all agree Hillary has work to do, sure. The VP pick was a bust and the DNC emails didn't help. I don't think either of those two are too hard to recover from though, and you can call me delusional here, but I have to assume with 3-4 months left SOME of the top brass at the DP will be able to do some things to try and appease the majority of Bernie supporters (and if not appease, at least making voting for Hillary tolerable).

I still stand by my point that the presidency is more than just the presidency, that that more part is worth casting a meaningful vote, and that people should try their best to cast meaningful votes. I see no reason why working hard to change the system and acting towards meaningful change should be separate from also casting a meaningful vote (just referencing the civil disobedience stuff from earlier).

If you want to take that as condescending, that's your prerogative. I can't really argue that I was or wasn't condescending because I'm always sarcastic / prodding people but what is just light-hearted banter for me ends up insulting others so let's go with

TL;DR - I think making meaningful votes in November is more important than voting strictly and only by some stringent / uncompromising set of principles because the presidency is about more than just the presidency. Fighting to change the system should occur during the 4 years between elections, not after your candidate has lost and you might fracture the party that is closer to you.
Imma vote Hillary, but she's really fucking it up.

In any case, she and Obama and the others have to stop talking about how America is already great, because it's really not for a lot of people.

If they want to win, they need to start talking a bit more Bernie-- that things are srsly fucked up, and that any optimism comes from a dedication to turning the status quo upside down.

If they don't stop messaging that keeps patronizing the country, we are gonna lose this shit.

Things got better under Obama-- but if we make believe they're already great, we are not going to get the votes.
 
Aldaron

How is public opinion having no effect on government policy a separate issue from voting being meaningless? How can a vote be meaningful if the policies of the country never reflect the policies of the voters? You did say you don't believe a vote is ever meaningless, unless 'a vote' isn't referring to the process of voting for representatives (president, congress, etc) and in your usage is more specific (the president?). So what is the meaning of a vote--i.e., supporting a candidate--if our candidates do not enact policies reflective of their supporters or constituents?
 

Shrug

is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Championis a Past SCL Champion
LCPL Champion
Pyritie said:
I'm confused. Has he ever voted before? Does he seriously believe there are people at voting booths who will force you to vote a certain way, and that they can connect your vote with your identity?

Or is he just fishing for internet points by making a jab at white people again, like all the other cool kids are doing these days?
he refers to the idea that if u vote for a third party you in part forfeit your ability to influence the country by voting for one of the two people who are going to win the election - you're basically saying you do not care who wins, for a preference for someone who is not going to win is (functionally, it prolly matters some in the long hall) no preference at all. This is a position that one can only hold if their lives arent at risk of significantly changing as a result of this election, people whose progress does not seem tenuously based upon myriad policy initiatives at risk of being torn down by a capricious or antagonist (to their well-being) leader. The people who dont face this risk are the landed-gentry types who are overwhelmingly white heterosexual wealthy etc, or differ slightly from this paradigm ofc, but the point remains that their lives arent under major threat from one of the two "real" options, so they can vote for a third. in a word these people are "privileged", which im sure you'll reject out of hand, but it's, y'know, correct. and of course these people so privileged are for the most part not people of color, whose betterment and well-being depends on things like racism not being even further normalized in this nation by the election of one candidate, or voters' rejection of a commitment to law and order politics that was crafted by George wallace; if the racial links arent made apparent by that idk what to say. "this doesnt matter, the election is a sham run by shills, the world is a stage" is dandy opinon to have if an election isnt literal life and death, which it is for some people, who are usually ppl of color (there are some white people too so u dont say "shrug your the racist!!!!!")

Your victim complex appalls me, do u as a white person on the internet really feel abused by intenet ppl taking jabs at u to improve their social cachet? wy is it cool for u to denounce legitimate pretty much surface-level criticism of very real privilege on the basis of this fake "reverse racism" shit that ur not even applyimg right? idk my dude

veiva said:
How is public opinion having no effect on government policy a separate issue from voting being meaningless? How can a vote be meaningful if the policies of the country never reflect the policies of the voters? You did say you don't believe a vote is ever meaningless, unless 'a vote' isn't referring to the process of voting for representatives (president, congress, etc) and in your usage is more specific (the president?). So what is the meaning of a vote--i.e., supporting a candidate--if our candidates do not enact policies reflective of their supporters or constituents?
i would tend to agree with you the average voters' preferences are not reflected in the policies of Washington (metonym for the ppl in congress the whitehouse etc) despite voters' selecting the ppl who comprise it to office (cf the links myzozoa posts about oligarchy) , and this is no doubt a major fault in our political system, and curtailing the undue influence of corporations and the like in our politics is vitally important to the idea of our democracy specifically. this is a perfectly fine position to hold; i hold it. I also know a vote for a third party or an abstain at the top is a way of protesting - of showing your dissatisfaction with the two candidates who are pretty bad. but in order to not vote in this election, you'll need to believe one of two things: that either a) it makes actually zero - none at all - difference who is president of the u.s vis a vis the passing of policies and form of government you find preferable or b) that any difference that does exist matters less than the long-term benefit that would be gained from the aggregate protest votes of abstain or for a third party. the first is, i feel untrue; you could believe, as i feel you do, corporate interests are reflected nearly 100% in government, and still recognize which corporate interests a candidate is affiliated with has an impact on policy. this seems morally reprehensible and a bad, bad option, and in most elections the lesser-of-two evils thing is kinda lazy and bad, but here it might be needed - there is a definite, say, national security risk inherent to abandoning NATO, which one person will attempt to do and one person will not. the second point is eo ipso tied to the first given i need to show how much clinton will do vs a protest vote, so here goes: she wants a constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform and will probably toss a liberal justice (+ more) on the supreme court needed to overturn Citizens United. Bernie Sanders showed the energy and support for a candidate of his policy positions and campaign structure, i.e one w/o big donors. he also showed the still-present power of the (fuck it) corporate machine in winning elections through his loss. i feel more sanders-type candidates will benefit from a constitutional amendment outlawing the giant donations and such giving them more opportunities to compete than by a protest vote made in this election. you could of course believe she has no intention of doing this or is incapable, but i feel u have enough hope based on ur support in the primaries to see this calculus in the way i do.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Imma vote Hillary, but she's really fucking it up.

In any case, she and Obama and the others have to stop talking about how America is already great, because it's really not for a lot of people.

If they want to win, they need to start talking a bit more Bernie-- that things are srsly fucked up, and that any optimism comes from a dedication to turning the status quo upside down.

If they don't stop messaging that keeps patronizing the country, we are gonna lose this shit.

Things got better under Obama-- but if we make believe they're already great, we are not going to get the votes.
No they really don't want to run on change. Running away from a successful Clinton presidency is a large part of why Gore lost.

Obama has net positive favorability. There is no reason for Hillary, who is less popular, to run away from status quo.
 

Pyritie

TAMAGO
is an Artist
he refers to the idea that if u vote for a third party you in part forfeit your ability to influence the country by voting for one of the two people who are going to win the election - you're basically saying you do not care who wins, for a preference for someone who is not going to win is (functionally, it prolly matters some in the long hall) no preference at all.
This is not true. You seem to be under the impression that the only thing that matters is the end result -- who becomes president -- and not that there's also a ton of influence with the information leading up to and including that end result. Two big things that have happened this election are third parties getting a ton more interest than they have in past years, even though it's still relatively small, and the massive divide in the DNC between hillary and sanders supporters. Even if Hillary wins, the fact that those two things even happened will be cause for concern and will help influence something.

Consider the UK elections last year. We have two big parties, Labour and Conservatives, and two smaller ones, Liberal Democrats and the newer UKIP. In 2010, Lib Dems got 23% of the vote and 57/650 seats, and UKIP got 3% and 0 seats. Now look at 2015. Lib dems shrunk down to 8% while UKIP surged to 12.6%. Yes, they still only won 1 seat, but that's still a huge % increase for what was effectively a protest vote. Did anyone expect them to win? Not really. Did that result have an influence anyway? Absolutely -- it's basically the reason why Cameron even suggested Brexit in the first place, as a sort of "ok, we'll have a vote just to make you lot shut up". It later blew up in his face but that's a different story.

Even if third parties gain a ton of support I still have very little faith in either of them winning, but all of the attention they're getting and how they're receiving a significant amount of growth will be setting off alarm bells saying "we should probably take a serious look at this instead of just ignoring them for another four years".

This is a position that one can only hold if their lives arent at risk of significantly changing as a result of this election, people whose progress does not seem tenuously based upon myriad policy initiatives at risk of being torn down by a capricious or antagonist (to their well-being) leader. The people who dont face this risk are the landed-gentry types who are overwhelmingly white heterosexual wealthy etc, or differ slightly from this paradigm ofc, but the point remains that their lives arent under major threat from one of the two "real" options, so they can vote for a third. in a word these people are "privileged", which im sure you'll reject out of hand, but it's, y'know, correct. and of course these people so privileged are for the most part not people of color, whose betterment and well-being depends on things like racism not being even further normalized in this nation by the election of one candidate, or voters' rejection of a commitment to law and order politics that was crafted by George wallace; if the racial links arent made apparent by that idk what to say. "this doesnt matter, the election is a sham run by shills, the world is a stage" is dandy opinon to have if an election isnt literal life and death, which it is for some people, who are usually ppl of color (there are some white people too so u dont say "shrug your the racist!!!!!")
I still fail to see how this is a "literal life and death" situation for anyone simply because they ticked a different box. One of the big two parties will end up winning anyway (and even if they didn't, hey, you won) and we'll be stuck with either horrible option #1 or horrible option #2 for four years. The president doesn't have absolute power to do whatever they hell they want, especially in trump's case where the vast majority of congress hate his guts.

edit: also "vote for X or you will die" is a stupid as hell thing for anyone in a first world democratic country to think; what is this, turkey?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top