|
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.
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
Sethex posted:The failure of the system through Trump can be an Avenue for changing that system. Accelerationism is an appalling program supported overwhelmingly by those who would not be harmed by the excesses of the oppression they seek to bring about in the name of the greater good. If you endorse it you are worse than sincere trump voters, because at least they aren't trying to bring about their goals through reverse loving psychology, and in theory you should know better.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Soup du Jour posted:Stein is not a good candidate because she's got an ego and appears to be unaware that she's a protest vote. But do you seriously think that the Hillary Is The Most Progressive Candidate Ever group is not tearing into her far more than A)is necessary considering her low standing in the polls and B)compared to 2012, when she also ran? I'm pretty sure there were no "Stein is the Hep C to Romney's AIDS!" takes four years ago. We are in a thread asking sincerely why voting for third parties is dumb, explaining that Jill "Wi-Fi Melts Kids' Brains" Stein is an egotistical anti-science hack is necessarily part of the answer.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Hillary is a neoliberal with a more hawkish foreign policy than Obama; you are really stretching the definition of "ideologically similar." I mean, I'd object to your meaningless categorization of her in the category that literally means nothing but Corporate Whore to you at this point, perhaps link you to her voting record, her public statements, her issue pages, the party platform... but none of those would change your mind. You were always going to go and vote Stein or La Riva or something. I really hope it's La Riva, at least she seems to think science is an okay thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 06:47
|
|