|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Sure, but it also won't happen You can't have this both ways; a solidly blue or red state becoming non-blue/red also won't happen, because it is vanishingly unlikely statistically (just like a third party winning).
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Note that I said "solidly." Most Americans live in states that are definitely not going to flip. Mel Mudkiper posted:To follow up This isn't how statistics works. Using this same logic, you could also say "well if trends suddenly drastically changed a third party could win!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:There is a difference between support and turnout Yes, but these changes occur over extended periods of time. A solidly blue or red state is not going to stop being solidly red/blue before this election any more than most Democrats might suddenly start voting for the Green Party. You would be able to see the trend as fewer people decided to vote Democrat (or whatever); it's not a change that will suddenly occur in a large population. The fact that it's technically possible for a bunch of Democrats to not vote in a solidly blue state (and cause the state to no longer be blue as a result) doesn't change the fact that the chance is still negligible. It's possible for a state to change within a certain margin of error before the election, and if you live in one of those states you should absolutely vote Democrat. But if you don't, the state isn't going to suddenly experience some radically different change in voting patterns. So basically my point here is that there's no moral or practical reason to vote Democratic if you live in a state that is currently solidly red/blue (unless your favorite candidate is actually Clinton, of course). edit: For the record, I'll be voting for Clinton in a solidly red state, but that is because I think that she is actually the best candidate, not as some calculus to defeat Trump. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Individualizing the problem, treating it as being a kind of "sin" that only "bad people" are guilty of, is really a defense mechanism, a way for us to maintain denial about our own role in these systems of oppression by projecting them onto an "other" that we can conveniently distance ourselves from; and so never have to be confronted with our own complicity, or risk threatening our self-image as a "good person". I think there's some truth to this. It seems like a very common thing for American liberals (maybe more left-leaning parties in other countries as well, but I'm only speaking about America) to talk about how Trump voters are all racist/sexist trash in a way that clearly implies that they're different and better. And, of course, there's a lot of truth to this - Trump voters definitely are more racist and sexist than liberals. And I'm also not sure that it's really a bad thing to openly condemn them for their racism/sexism; in fact, it's probably a good thing. I guess what concerns me is that there seems to be a major blind spot among liberals where they only focus on how Those People are racist scum and completely ignore their own biases. I seem to see this particularly often among older liberals. I'm not really recommending any particular solution to this problem, since, as I mentioned, I don't think condemning conservatives is a bad thing in and of itself. But I do think that it's a bad thing for people to only focus on condemning the sins of others while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the country, Democrat or Republican, freely practices a bunch of casual racism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Long term unemployment benefits that paid more than minimum wage disincentivized people from working. Not because they were lazy, but because it made more economic sense to not work. Assistance for single mothers, not provided to married families, disincentivized families to stay together. Your logic would only make sense if there were tens of millions of job openings that people are just voluntarily not filling. You're misunderstanding how the economy works. Jobs won't just create themselves if you suddenly abolish welfare (if anything the opposite would happen, because you'd suddenly be removing a huge amount of money from the economy, causing countless businesses to fail in low income areas).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:Where did I advocate slave labor? And which ones aren't regulations/laws/whatever? For any industry (or time period) where the labor supply exceeds the labor demand, wages will naturally drop as low as possible in a free market (also assuming no welfare, which you already said you were against).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Sulphuric rear end in a top hat posted:I agree with your explanation of supply and demand, however I don't quite understand how this is slave labor. It's "wage slavery", which isn't that different given that someone's only other choice (assuming no welfare state) is to starve and die.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I'm a fan of throwing your vote at a third party. Mostly because America had a lot of structural problems an Hillary is only going to make things worse by being status quo an people like trump will likely spur reform by being as lovely as Nixon if not worse. The main issue people having with many anti-Clinton folks is that they rarely specify any actual policy they disagree with. It is a fact that Clinton is more left-leaning than the average Democrat. Granted, this is far from ideal and the average Democrat is not very left-leaning at all, but the problem is that people act like Clinton is more right-wing than most Democratic politicians, which is provably false. The impression that Clinton is notably right-wing seems to be entirely based on some vague perception created by the media, rather than reality. I think the only specific thing I've seen anyone mention in this thread is US policy in the Middle East (specifically Syria*). Is there any other specific reason why you (and others) are so strongly against Clinton? Are you also as strongly against the vast majority of other Democrats? *To be fair, there is a debate to be had here, and I don't like how many people immediately turn "we shouldn't intervene" into "YOU MUST BE PRO-ASSAD". It's no different than someone claiming someone is pro-Saddam for not supporting the sanctions or war in Iraq. It is a fact that regime change does not usually improve things in these situations (and often makes them worse), so the fact that Assad is bad is not a valid argument against non-intervention.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I read the excerpts from the goldman sachs speeches and they imply a pretty right wing economic policy. My feeling about Clinton (and most Democrats for that matter, including Obama) is that they will definitely do stuff that helps the country economically, but there's a strict limit in the sense that they'll never do anything that investment banks like Goldman Sachs (and the wealthy in general by proxy) are strongly opposed to. I don't think this is due to any conspiracy; I think it's just because people like Obama and Clinton have spoken with firms like Goldman Sachs and think "these people look and sound professional and intelligent" and build a strong relationship as a result. This isn't exactly a condemnation; like I said, I think Clinton will be a good president and will help the country in various ways. But I definitely think that she won't do anything that has a significantly negative impact on the investment banks or wealthy Americans in general. This doesn't mean she won't increase taxes on the wealthy; that's possible since a large portion of wealthy are willing to accept some tax increases. It just means there's a strict line that she won't cross (and that line is when the banks and/or wealthy Americans says "no we don't want this"). In general, I think it's accurate to say that both Republicans and Democrats represent the interests of the wealthy, but they represent different subsets of the wealthy. Not all wealthy people have the same opinions, after all. Republicans represent the most greedy and bigoted rich people, while Democrats represent the "best" wealthy Americans (who are generally cool with minorities and don't want people to live in poverty). Despite this, voting Democrat is still important because there is a significant difference between the views of these two subsets of the wealthy, with one maliciously wanting to gently caress the poor and the other wanting to help the poor (as long as it doesn't have a significant negative impact on them).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Sounds a lot like 2005 Adbuster, Trump would just make things far, far worse, though. And there is no rational reason to believe that he'll 'shake things up" in a way that will cause any positive changes in the future. Accelerationism is dumb. Even on the off-chance that Trump triggers some long slide into fascism that ultimately somehow results in a better country (which is unlikely to begin with), it woud take a very long time and countless people would suffer in the process (which is why people criticize accelerationism proponents as usually being privileged white males who are unlikely to face the downsides to such a future).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Except that's how reform worked in the past, ie the outcome of Watergate. Yes, you can cherry pick examples, but the vast majority of times countries have ended up with terrible right-wing authoritarian leaders, it hasn't somehow lead to the country becoming a left-wing paradise afterwards. It usually just causes a bunch of suffering with no benefits.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Play posted:She's also a politician, so unlike her detractors and die-hard Bernie Bros she actually has to make decisions and create policy in the context of reality. I'm not a big fan of this argument, because it can literally always be made to defend any politician. That is, you can always say "it's unrealistic to expect them to be more left-leaning (or whatever) than they are because Political Realities!" That being said, there is obviously some truth to the idea that a politician needs to make compromises in order to rise to power in the first place. But I don't really see any benefit to defending them on that basis, since there would be no reason for the Democrats to ever shift left if every single Democratic constituent said "well they're doing the most they possibly can because of Political Realities, so it's unrealistic to demand more." None of this is relevant to the topic of who you vote for in a presidential election, however; the only thing that should matter when voting is which vote will have the best impact on the country (so whether a candidate isn't ideal isn't important; it just matters whether they'll make things better and are better than their opponent). I just don't think that "nuh uh Hillary is literally the best it is possible for a politician to be, to expect anything more is unrealistic!" is a useful way to think, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with expressing your disagreements in the hopes that a politician will move in that direction in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Armani posted:Can you elaborate on the bolded part, please? I can only parse 2 things from this: 1. Recessions can be very profitable for competent investors, particularly if they're predictable (because you can be very confident that the market will improve again in the future, so it's a good time to buy and then sell once the market returns to normal). I guess this is pretty true, though it's hard to say whether Trump would actually be capable of doing something that would cause a recession during his presidency (though we're about due for another recession regardless of who becomes president). 2. I think he is trying to say that the economy is bad because millennials (and I guess other liberals/leftists) focus on "identity politics" instead of economic policy. This is obviously pretty dumb, because a bunch of millennials supported Bernie who talked a bunch about income/wealth inequality and Hillary has adopted some of his platform as a result. I think this idea stems from the fact that some people (like Sethex) believe that people can only care about one thing at once, so if millennials care about stuff like race/LGBT issues then they obviously can't also care about economic issues.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
call to action posted:Wait, you actually think Hillary's (or any other candidate's) platform means something? I thought that was just something Hillary supporters said to try and placate/condescend to Bernie supporters. Given that historically candidates tend to do most of the stuff they outline in their platforms, I see no rational reason to assume that Hillary's platform is all lies meant to entice more left-leaning Democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
The biggest fallacy a lot of people like spotlessd and NewForumSoftware seem to be making is that they're using the following logic: "Democrats are focusing on social issues but are not focusing enough on leftist economic policy; ergo they are wrong to focus on social issues." The obvious problem with this is that focusing on the latter is unrelated to not focusing on the former. Like, given those circumstances, the problem is merely "Democrats aren't focusing enough on leftist economic policy", and the fact that they're focusing on a different good thing (social issues) isn't what's stopping them from focusing on the other issue (since it's possible to focus on two things at once). It's like if you asked someone to buy you bread and milk at the store and they returned with just the bread and then you complained about them buying the milk. I can actually sort of understand why someone would end up coming to this conclusion, since there's some truth to the idea that the Democratic Party has redefined American leftism as being primarily socially (as opposed to economically) progressive*, but that still doesn't in any way mean that being socially progressive is bad or undesirable (or that the Democrats aren't doing anything to help economically, for that matter). Of course, there's also a passively racist element to this, where many white male leftists don't value social issues as highly because they don't personally stand to benefit as much. * For example, another poster (I believe "stone cold") mentioned that this would be the most progressive Democratic platform in history, and I imagine they were saying this because it's the most socially progressive platform in history, but it's probably not accurate to say it's economically the most progressive. The social progressivism is just the first thing that comes to mind about the Democratic Party (and liberals in general) for most people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Regarding mistakes Hillary (and the DNC) made, I feel that stuff like the "deplorables" incident was a huge mistake and, to a lot of Trump supporters (or potential Trump supporters), basically reinforced the stereotype of liberals being out of touch elitists and possibly galvanized them. In general, there was an obvious sense of disdain and condescension from the Democratic Party towards anyone voting (or even considering to vote for) Trump. Trump voters were also heavily mis-characterized by Clinton/Democrats. While a majority of Trump voters are certainly at least somewhat racist, that was not the driving factor behind his support. The main reason people supported Trump was because they were unhappy with the status quo and hoped someone from "outside the establishment" might change things (because they sure as hell couldn't expect Hillary to*, given her core message of "America is already great and things are moving in the right direction"). The fact that their solution to this problem was ridiculous and counterproductive doesn't change the fact that the core motivation for their opinions was something genuine and understandable. Even the racism doesn't just stem from nothing; people turn to such bigoted beliefs because they are unhappy and seeking someone to blame for their problems. Obviously I am not saying that a significant number of Trump voters would have switched their votes to Clinton if she had addressed these issues. But I do feel like it may have decreased his support somewhat and also possibly increased support and enthusiasm among poorer white Democrats. Just in case, I feel like I should mention that I voted for Clinton in TN, so this post is not an argument in favor of voting third party. I just feel that Clinton/Democrats made some pretty critical mistakes this election and will continue to fail if they don't learn from them. (As a side note, one observation I've made during this election is that, from my subjective experience, Hillary's most enthusiastic supporters seemed to be economically secure white professionals. While I'm sure many people I know who don't fit this description voted for Hillary, literally every single person who was openly enthusiastic was a well-off professional. While this is anecdotal and should obviously be taken with a grain of salt, I feel like it may have been representative of the nature of Hillary's support in general and why she had such poor turn-out among Democratic voters. Also, since most people who are well-off professionals mostly know other people are also well-off professionals, they probably had the general perception that support for Hillary was higher than it actually was. This also applies to large swathes of the coastal liberal media, who were insulated in a bubble of people from similar socioeconomic backgrounds that colored their perception of general enthusiasm for Hillary's campaign.) * I mean this in the sense that Hillary and the DNC's messaging did not emphasize problems with the status quo. I realize that her actual policies would have made a significant positive impact, and I also understand that they did this in an attempt to gain the support of people who are happy with Obama's presidency, but I still feel like it was a mistake. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Condiv posted:Hmm yes, voting for Hillary in the 5th reddest state this election would've helped my friends. Oh wait, no it wouldn't of, you're just lashing out at third party voters because you can't deal with the fact hillary was terrible and couldn't turn out dems. Yeah, there isn't really any inherent problem with voting third party in a state that is guaranteed to be either red or blue. I still have a problem with Jill Stein voters, but that's because Jill Stein is awful, not because of strategy or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 00:53
|
|