|
It has to do with it because people like to act like demagogues and analyze these issues in a vacuum, which sounds good until real world context sets in.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
twodot posted:Right, every election you need to reevaluate whether your state is likely to be in contention because: I don't think voting third party is fundamentally stupid; but they should be starting locally and working their way towards making themselves a viable alternative. Take noted (until recently) independent Bernie Sanders; He didn't start off making pointless runs at President, he went for Mayor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Your moral purity makes very little difference. Go to protests against wars. Write to everyone you can think of. Vote Monster Raving Looney party if you want, and also write letters to the powerful parties detailing your disgust for war. Will it solve all war? No. You are still one person in 318 million. I'm (probably) not voting for Johnson or Stein. If I did I wouldn't vote for them with the intention of seeing either of them win. I haven't seen my ballot yet (it gets mailed to me and I get lots of time to decide who I want to vote for). I understand that my 'moral purity' makes little difference to you. To me what you have to understand is that if you vote for a democrat or republican your choice of candidate is varying degrees of horrendous. Both republican and democrat presidential candidates are already responsible for sowing their own brands of misery. Honestly I imagine that Trump is probably actually responsible for less of that over all than Hillary, while Hillary would be a better president. The sad thing is that for people like me, family from South America with family in places directly affected by the particularly disgusting brand of imperialism the US has perpetrated and encouraged, its extremely hard to justify voting for candidates who will continue that to varying degrees. In my experience this: quote:3rd party voters tend to be white people who have nothing at stake just like accelerationists. That's why they can afford to be whiny tantrum-throwing babies. Is the opposite of truth, but that tends to be because of the groups of people you spend time around. I imagine poster stone cold has this opinion because the vast majority of people he interacts with are white people who have nothing at stake. Because I'm not white and my family isn't from the US I tend to be most comfortable around other not white US native people and my experience is that those people have the hardest time just voting democrat or republican. Lots of Republicans I know are disgusted by Donald Trump and thinking about voting for Hillary or Johnson. Lots of democrats I know are like, man Hillary is kind of a hawk and traditionally has terrible opinions of black people and gay people, maybe I'll vote for Jill Stein. Lots of independents I know are very conflicted about who they want to vote for because they know the green party is traditionally ineffectual at every level. I feel bad for everyone who has to navigate the murky waters of not being loyal to a major
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Quorum posted:If you vote for one of the two major parties, there is a possibility, no matter how vanishingly small, that you will tip the balance. Remember that for the first time ever we are witnessing a matchup between a campaign with a legendary GOTV machine and a campaign with basically none. This is unprededented; we have no idea if this will cause Clinton to overperform her polls, and if so, how much. We could theoretically see a 5% swing on Election Day. If you are part of a swathe of people not contributing to that because you feel warm and fuzzy voting for a socialist splinter party/are a single issue IT procedure voter/feel like it won't matter/get too high to vote, that becomes fractionally more massively unlikely. What's the probability of a vote mattering in say, Illinois? The odds of Illinois being the tipping point state, combined with the odds that it's a complete tie other than your vote? It has to calculable but maybe it's 0 because a state like IL can't ever be a tipping point state?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:What's the probability of a vote mattering in say, Illinois? The odds of Illinois being the tipping point state, combined with the odds that it's a complete tie other than your vote? It has to calculable but maybe it's 0 because a state like IL can't ever be a tipping point state? e: heck, we're seeing the start of this now, with Trump winning non-college educated white men by eleven trillion percent and Hillary winnning minorities by eighty quadrillion percent. States that could never have tipped in 2000 are laughably close now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
How to fix the electoral system: if you vote for a candidate you automatically get drafted for any war they start
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:How to fix the electoral system: if you vote for a candidate you automatically get drafted for any war they start That would certainly guarantee a 0% turn-out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Honestly I imagine that Trump is probably actually responsible for less of that over all than Hillary, while Hillary would be a better president. Trump is certainly innocent of doing anything bad as a politician because he has never held political office. As for Hillary being a better president, well, duh. She wins by virtue of not being crazy and not having policies like officially discriminating against a certain religion. If you vote for her, it doesn't mean you bless any lovely thing she does. It just means that she's the only qualified candidate. The choices aren't between Clinton and a great candidate, but Clinton and a really catastrophically terrible candidate. If you can't see that Trump is a lot worse than Romney and McCain I don't know what to tell you. He's really historically bad, which is why many loyal Republicans are against him. It's not like choosing between the Red Sox and the Yankees. It's not a "sports rivalry." It's like choosing between the Red Sox and the Ku Klux Klan in-house baseball team.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Holy poo poo this avatar is amazing thank you so much. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:I don't feel right having on my conscience whether its a war in Iraq and Afghanistan or continuing that war with drone strikes and by supporting those parties you are supporting those actions. So, a legitimate question then: Do you think your conscience is clear through inaction? If you see bad things happening and you choose not to act to limit or stop them, do you consider yourself blameless and sleep comfortably at night? Or, alternately, does your conscience allow you to sleep comfortably knowing you've put the onus of making those decisions on other people? How is it remotely moral to go "Well, yes, I know not voting will mean that gay rights may be negatively impacted, but other people will do that for me so I don't have to." Doesn't that strike you as cowardly? Relying on other people to vote and take action just so you don't have to actually make a difficult decision? Doorknob Slobber posted:Lots of Republicans I know are disgusted by Donald Trump and thinking about voting for Hillary or Johnson. Lots of democrats I know are like, man Hillary is kind of a hawk and traditionally has terrible opinions of black people and gay people, maybe I'll vote for Jill Stein. Lots of independents I know are very conflicted about who they want to vote for because they know the green party is traditionally ineffectual at every level. I feel bad for everyone who has to navigate the murky waters of not being loyal to a major The problem here is that a lot of those opinions are dumb. "Hillary Clinton had traditionally terrible opinions on black people" is traced to a single out of context quote and if she had a long history of racism you can bet you'd be hearing about it and her support among black voters wouldn't be astronomical. Not only that but going to Stein means you're supporting a lot of incredibly damaging and flawed things. (She is, at minimum, not willing to dismiss anti-vaxxers even if she doesn't agree with them.) Someone going from Bernie Sanders to Gary Johnson is dumb because those two are almost completely different politically and any leaps of logic to go from A to B mean that they were poorly informed politically. There are plenty of reasons to dislike someone. I have problems with Clinton myself. Going "I can't support Clinton so I'm voting for (x)" however means that you should have to apply the same focus to their policies as you do to Clinton's. If you don't want to vote Clinton and instead choose to vote Stein, why are her policies something you can comfortably support? Because she can't win? If so you're just raging against nothing rather than sticking to your principles. Like even you say "they know they'll never be meaningful but they're ideologically pure!" Doesn't the inherent flaw there become obvious? The reason they are ideologically pure is because they don't have to actually appeal to anyone. It's meaningless. They don't have to actually compromise and bend and so going "Well, I support them more" ignores the fact that of course you do, they don't have to function under the same handicap as political parties that actually do things. Edit: I should note that, just to be clear, I'm talking about people here supporting third parties without actually doing proper research and being sure they are exactly what they want. If you're someone who is wholeheartedly down with everything Jill Stein says from start to finish and wholeheartedly think if she gets elected she can actually institute those plans then vote for her. I would however be really doubtful unless I heard an informed and spirited defense of it. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
There's two main problems with the whole "Voting third party to send a message" idea. 1) If you vote for a third party you are not sending your message, you're sending their message. The GOP or DNC doesn't know what you -Noble Protest Voter - want, they only know as an aggregate. You vote for Jill Stein, you're just another tick-point towards the typical green party voter. You vote for Gary Johnson and you're just another tick-point towards the typical libertarian voter. As others have mentioned before with the ways that elections are now any party's platform and policy is going to be towards what they think are going to get the most votes. And luring away some people from the opposite main party is going to be a lot easier in many circumstances than trying to lure in fringe voters from third party groups. 2) The two main parties of the US are not homogeneous in any way, shape, or form. They already are comprised of multiple smaller groups that have effectively banded together to have influence in our political system. On the surface our system is dominated by two groups and two groups alone, unlike parliamentary systems, but many of those parliamentary systems have two main groups w/regional flavors that almost always align with the main group. Most environmentalists are Democrats and vote D, most social activists are as well. Most libertarians make up the fodder and leadership of the GOP's 'Business Wing', most evangelicals are Republicans and vote R as well. The re-alignments in the past were due to those various sub factions jumping from one party to the other, sometimes with a transition period, and whatever sub faction(s) of that group that were opposed to them swapping to the other side, if applicable. The Civil Rights Era was a great example of this, but in more recent times you have the Muslim-Americans splitting off from the GOP and going rather reliably Democratic because of how the GOP has shifted since 9-11. If you want your party of choice to move towards a fringe, then go ahead and vote for that fringe. But if you don't like the candidate understand that by not voting for that party you run the risk of your party shifting in a direction you don't want it to, and chances are it's not going to go the way that you want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why do people only ever support Third Parties once every four years and never at any other time. Christ, you might as well write in Santa Claus as your vote. If you're serious about supporting the Green Party or whatever then you need to focus on actually building a real voting base starting at the local level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Honestly just imagine the 'rhetorical judo' involved in making a statement like 'you're maintaining the status quo by not participating in one of the two major parties'. Neither party gets moved from the inside, when you look at the major progressive advances($15 minimum wage, gay rights, pot legalization being the biggest off the top of my head) in the last twenty or so years its been activists on the outside, at the local level that have moved democrats left and democratic politicians pushed against all those things super loving hard until they decided it was politically beneficial to do otherwise. Right. Your post is mostly accurate, except that the conclusions you draw are all wrong. You're correct that, for example, the $15 minimum wage movement did not originate within the leadership of the Democratic party...but it wasn't brought about by third parties or voting for them, either. Same with the other two - we didn't get gay marriage because of people voting Green. If you want a party to take a certain position, you're not going to accomplish it with just changing who you vote for in the presidential election. And I gotta be honest, you're putting quite the negative implications on "political party doesn't support position until it gathers significant, enthusiastic support and begins to break into the mainstream". BarbarianElephant posted:It's not unusual for young people to refuse to vote on the grounds that the establishment is so far from their ideals that it is not worth engaging with, and that's why political pollsters tend to ignore the 18-34 age bracket. There's no point in worrying about the desires of a demographic that probably won't vote. Old folk vote with steely regularity, because they have realized that their vote really does matter, and that's why campaigns pander to them. They've lived through the process of their far-out ideas becoming "the way things are" and they understand that turning up counts. Not just voting, either. The stupidest goddamn thing about Occupy (and there were a lot of stupid things to choose from) was that it actively rejected any kind of engagement with politics for fear of being "co-opted" by the scary politicians. Meanwhile, BLM made their issue an election issue just by not being afraid to make themselves political and put individual politicians on the spot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:Is the opposite of truth, but that tends to be because of the groups of people you spend time around. I imagine poster stone cold has this opinion because the vast majority of people he interacts with are white people who have nothing at stake. Because I'm not white and my family isn't from the US I tend to be most comfortable around other not white US native people and my experience is that those people have the hardest time just voting democrat or republican. 1. I'm a girl. 2. Without going into my background, my friends and family do all have something at stake this election. When the two party choice is someone who wants to deport pretty much all minorities except black people, send women chained back to the kitchen and the bedroom, and just in general destroy America vs. someone who intends to end family detention, close private detention centers, and help more eligible people become naturalized, yeah I'm pretty chill with the sane people option. 3. Your anecdotes are great but in March to June, applications to naturalize and become voting-eligible citizens were up 32% over the previous year and I'm gonna toss out those people haven't been hearing the rhetoric and going 'yes I think I'll pull the lever for Gary Johnson.' Also, the polling data shows that it's more white people that support Johnson or Stein, not your feelings, so..... 4. I frankly can't understand having a tortured struggle over who to vote for this election but I empathize with you. That said, I think it's condescending in the extreme to assume others who vote down party lines don't do any sort of research or give any thought about the down ticket and the ballot props etc. 5. If you genuinely believe that in the mirror universe where Jill "Russia Today" Stein or Gary "What's Aleppo?" Johnson are elected, that somehow American isolationism and Russian imperialism would make the world a better, less strife ridden place, then there's really nothing I can say to convince you of anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
If you're voting third party to 'send a message' you should be writing letters instead because I guarantee "Hi I normally vote D but I have a serious problem with your history of hawkishness and am seriously considering not voting for you because of that" is a lot clearer of a message than "voted Green". "voted Green" might mean you hate vaccines, or oil, or just have a crush on Jill Stein, none of which are really messages that are going to be taken seriously. Sure it's only an intern that will read them and respond most likely but constantly writing in about how the policies you hate affect your loved ones in South America will still get noticed and maybe even make it up the ladder if you're lucky as opposed to your +1 vote to the tally of <5% Green voters which will just be tossed in the trash. I get it, it really sucks to be on the business end of the US foreign policy stick but voting third party doesn't send the message you want the major parties to hear, you gotta bring your grievance to the major parties directly.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:You. Do. Not. Vote. To. Encourage. Policy. Change. This is, of course, completely false and at odds with the actual academic political science research on third parties which finds that voting third party is effective in changing the platforms of the major parties and advancing new policy ideas that are taken up by the political mainstream. Is the pathological need of a certain brand of Clinton supporter to denounce progressives who vote their conscience and vote third party so vitriolic because they're trying to justify to themselves that their vote for a corrupt party system is the only defensible choice? They seem to hate prospective Stein voters with an intensity unmatched in their opinion of Trump voters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
OK I'll vote Hillary if Texas is a swing state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Is the pathological need of a certain brand of Clinton supporter to denounce progressives who vote their conscience There is literally nobody a progressive can vote third party for and be voting their conscience in this election. At best you're voting for someone who is only focusing on very narrow niches and if they won would have no ability to act on their promises without compromise. The Insect Court posted:They seem to hate prospective Stein voters with an intensity unmatched in their opinion of Trump voters. Supporting a candidate who refuses to straight-out denounce anti-vaxxers is abhorrent, yes. Stein is also not particularly great about discussing plausible policies and seems more interested in attention than actual progressive politics. Telling me you're voting Jill Stein puts you either into the position of someone ragevoting for the most recognizable name that isn't Johnson, Clinton or Trump or someone whose politics are so skewed they could never actual make meaningful progressive advancement. And I actually agree with a lot of things Stein says on general principle. It's just that once you go beyond that it's clear she's paper-thin at best and most of the things she says are things Clinton and Sanders also have said. The major difference is that while I don't agree with Clinton on everything I believe she could actually get things done while even if by some miracle Jill Stein won I don't believe she has the capabilities to do anything about the problems she discusses. That isn't voting my conscious. It's voting for something that sounds good and nothing else. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Oct 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:If you're voting third party to 'send a message' you should be writing letters instead because I guarantee "Hi I normally vote D but I have a serious problem with your history of hawkishness and am seriously considering not voting for you because of that" is a lot clearer of a message than "voted Green". "voted Green" might mean you hate vaccines, or oil, or just have a crush on Jill Stein, none of which are really messages that are going to be taken seriously. Sure it's only an intern that will read them and respond most likely but constantly writing in about how the policies you hate affect your loved ones in South America will still get noticed and maybe even make it up the ladder if you're lucky as opposed to your +1 vote to the tally of <5% Green voters which will just be tossed in the trash. I get it, it really sucks to be on the business end of the US foreign policy stick but voting third party doesn't send the message you want the major parties to hear, you gotta bring your grievance to the major parties directly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:Hello, it is possible to both vote and write letters. Yes, but only one of those things is going to cause meaningful change in the party's positions. If you really want to vote for antivaxxers or people who literally don't care about the outside world, if those are really the positions you hold, then sure, vote third-party - just don't do it because you think your ineffectual protest vote will swing the Democrats to the left.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yes, but only one of those things is going to cause meaningful change in the party's positions. If you really want to vote for antivaxxers or people who literally don't care about the outside world, if those are really the positions you hold, then sure, vote third-party - just don't do it because you think your ineffectual protest vote will swing the Democrats to the left. There are third parties on the left other than the Greens. Granted, not on the ballot most places. Anyone who thinks voting on an individual scale is going to change anything is an idiot. Regardless of the party/candidate. That being said, claiming that third parties capturing a non-trivial portion of the electorate wouldn't have an impact on the politics of either of the major parties seems a bit silly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yes, but only one of those things is going to cause meaningful change in the party's positions. If you really want to vote for antivaxxers or people who literally don't care about the outside world, if those are really the positions you hold, then sure, vote third-party - just don't do it because you think your ineffectual protest vote will swing the Democrats to the left.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:This is, of course, completely false and at odds with the actual academic political science research on third parties which finds that voting third party is effective in changing the platforms of the major parties and advancing new policy ideas that are taken up by the political mainstream. Then you'll have no problem ponying up evidence for this, would you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
The fact that third party voting in the US is almost exclusively a hobby of privileged white people should probably give people pause. Minorities don't vote overwhelming Democratic because they're dupes - which is the implicit position of super-woke white people - but because they recognize the only choice likely to have ANY positive impact on their lives going forward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The fact that third party voting in the US is almost exclusively a hobby of privileged white people should probably give people pause. It seems like a lot of minorities don't identify or vote for any one party at all looking at these polls. At least younger people. http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/31/the-party-of-nonvoters-2/
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:It seems like a lot of minorities don't identify or vote for any one party at all looking at these polls. At least younger people. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/third-party-voting-nonwhite-millennials Most minority millenials are at least supporting Clinton over Trump. But in terms of just general population, African Americans tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Asian Americans also tend to lean that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:That being said, claiming that third parties capturing a non-trivial portion of the electorate wouldn't have an impact on the politics of either of the major parties seems a bit silly. Maybe it seems silly to you...but it also lines up with facts. Remember when Perot or Nader caused the main two parties to change positions? No, me neither. Honestly, the most ridiculous part of this whole discussion, for me, is that the right have already figured out how to drag the Republican party rightwards, successfully carried it out, went overboard with it, and promptly crashed and burned in a massive moderate backlash against their idiocy - all in the course of the last eight years. Meanwhile, the far left thinks "maybe I should vote Green in November to show those dumb Democrat $hills who's boss" constitutes a clever movement toward political reform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The fact that third party voting in the US is almost exclusively a hobby of privileged white people should probably give people pause. I mean, you can say that if you let Trump win by voting third party that people will die, but the reality is with the drug war and foreign wars lots of people are gonna die either way. Greens and Libertarians, whatever their other flaws are, tend to be against those things harder than the big parties. If that's not where your priorities lie, that's one thing of course but let's get real: you can say the whole "tons of people will die" thing and be 100% correct about every Presidential election. None of this is to contest that Trump is an extraordinarily bad candidate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:30
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Greens and Libertarians, whatever their other flaws are, tend to be against those things harder than the big parties. Greens maybe but Libertarians are totally in favor of poo poo that will cause people to die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Maybe it seems silly to you...but it also lines up with facts. Remember when Perot or Nader caused the main two parties to change positions? No, me neither. Are you basing your opinion on just those two examples? Or is there actual literature that supports what you're saying? How could you possibly tell they didn't? quote:Meanwhile, the far left thinks "maybe I should vote Green in November to show those dumb Democrat $hills who's boss" Again, more parties than just the Greens. Justice? There are leftist parties in America that don't believe nuclear energy and GMOs are going to kill us all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
I'm not arguing for the merits of a given party. The "but people's lives are on the line!" thing is just totally naive. Hillary is going to kill tons of foreigners and imprison millions of black men. She can be that and be better than Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Then you'll have no problem ponying up evidence for this, would you? https://books.google.com/books?id=W92b5gCRQhEC&pg=PA8 This really isn't that controversial an opinion, it's simply that Hillary zealots have convinced themselves that as an a priori matter third-party voting must be feckless and ineffective. Which, as I said before, strikes me as a sort of psychological defense mechanism invoked to alleviate the cognitive dissonance of self-styled "progressive" or "liberal" voters casting a ballot for a center-right candidate. The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Oct 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:https://books.google.com/books?id=W92b5gCRQhEC&pg=PA8 ... Did you actually look at your citation? Hint: The quote there is from 1933. Edit: Actually have you read through this thing you linked at all? ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Oct 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Holy poo poo this avatar is amazing thank you so much. welcome to the brotherhood
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Maybe it seems silly to you...but it also lines up with facts. Remember when Perot or Nader caused the main two parties to change positions? No, me neither. The problem is that the Democratic leadership have been actively preventing the type of radical drag the far right pulled off since 1972. The '68 riots, McGovern, and even Carter pushed the party as a whole to a firmly moderate position to try to be more appealing to Republican leaning voters. Bill essentially proved this mentality not only by winning both his elections, but also through his policies. The Democrats have been doing everything they can since then to prove they're the big tent party by being a synthesis of right and left wing politics, including blocking policies that were supported by a majority of the population. You gotta admit that creating an opposition party at least seems like the more effective way to push for left wing policies than trying to be part of a party that takes your support for granted. ImpAtom posted:Greens maybe but Libertarians are totally in favor of poo poo that will cause people to die. Libertarians don't favor policies that will cause people to die, it's just that whoever dies from the policies they favor totally deserved it in the first place. 
MizPiz fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Oct 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Greens maybe but Libertarians are totally in favor of poo poo that will cause people to die. I wouldn't say maybe for the greens. Anti-vaccination policy would lead to many, many preventable, horrible deaths. Actively subverting humanity's ability to eradicate disease is just as mustache-twirlingly evil as anything the libertarians advocate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
It's really weird that progressive democrats who complain that leftist third parties aren't relevant enough focus on the failings of one third party instead of actually supporting one that might more closely support their views. They are out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's really weird that progressive democrats who complain that leftist third parties aren't relevant enough focus on the failings of one third party instead of actually supporting one that might more closely support their views. They are out there. I especially love when, after complaining about those failings, they claim trying to change the biggest and most entrenched political party in the country is the best way enact radical reforms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's really weird that progressive democrats who complain that leftist third parties aren't relevant enough focus on the failings of one third party instead of actually supporting one that might more closely support their views. They are out there. I've investigated most third parties. They boil down to "single-issue voters" or "things I agree with but no capability or plans to execute those things." If you know a capable third party with actually well-fleshed intelligent plans who doesn't support something abhorrent please tell me because I'd love to support them. MizPiz posted:I especially love when, after complaining about those failings, they claim trying to change the biggest and most entrenched political party in the country is the best way enact radical reforms. Yes, actually, trying to push a party that has actual capability to enact things is in fact better. Bernie Sanders got the Democratic platform pushed further left than it would have been with his run. Meanwhile the other third parties this election season are less relevant than Jill Stein who is only mildly more relevant than an internet meme. They've done not a single thing to change anything. Edit: And if you're looking for Radical Reforms then no electoral party is going to help you. You need an actual uprising or something so significant it shift culture massively to get huge groundswell support. Voting for someone who has no power and no chance of winning isn't supporting radical reform. It's doing the absolute bare minimum you can while telling yourself that you're supporting radical reform. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Oct 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:42 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I've investigated most third parties. They boil down to "single-issue voters" or "things I agree with but no capability or plans to execute those things." http://www.justicepartyusa.org/platform I don't know what "capable" means but these is a well-fleshed intelligent platform that doesn't support something abhorrent. Feel free to show some love.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:00
|
|