|
Noam Chomsky posted:Also it shows a general ignorance of government, that, were the third party candidate to win, anyone else in the organs of government would work with them, despite barely working with Obama. You can see how this would work out by looking at the tantrum over Corbyn in the UK. He's a Bernie-esque far left politician, who got elected to the Labour Party leadership by the popular vote. Unfortunately, the entire establishment (including his own MPs) loathes him and refuses to work with him, so he can't get any drat thing done. Trying to build a house from the roof down doesn't work. Voting for a president who doesn't have the party structure to become president is futile. It can only be a protest vote. If the USA had a brain spasm and elected Jill Stein, she wouldn't have enough people with experience in running a government to be able to form a government. There would need to be a lot of powerful Greens at various levels of government. You'd need Green governors, mayors and senators.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
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. Also,  that Gary 'Private Prisons' Johnson a. Takes black issues seriously and b. Isn't a white nationalist who is better at hiding it than Trump via dogwhistles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:I agree progressive is a meaningless label, but I don't spend my time telling people that they are incorrect in thinking the current government is more progressive than previous governments, because I understand it is a meaningless label. I just loving answered you. You should vote for one of the two major parties regardless of what district you're voting in because it is at least a little more useful than voting third party. In your example, were a person to vote for Clinton in that district, it would at least show a little more support for a candidate from an actual, viable party in that district, whereas a third party vote just shows you're part of a contingent the major parties have already written off. I answered you earlier by saying that you should vote, and never vote third party, ever. You're just being pedantic. Also, yes, if you don't feel Obama is at least more progressive than Bush and Bill Clinton, then you don't know what the gently caress you're talking about. You haven't been paying attention. If you don't feel the whole government is progressive enough then how about show up during midterms and vote down ticket against Republicans? How about you defend your assertion that voting third party will accomplish anything, ever? It has yet to accomplish anything at all, aside from being a spoiler of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
stone cold posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:You can see how this would work out by looking at the tantrum over Corbyn in the UK. He's a Bernie-esque far left politician, who got elected to the Labour Party leadership by the popular vote. Unfortunately, the entire establishment (including his own MPs) loathes him and refuses to work with him, so he can't get any drat thing done. Yes. You have to build a movement in the way Republicans have done in the past, by taking over local offices and school boards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:In your example, were a person to vote for Clinton in that district, it would at least show a little more support for a candidate from an actual, viable party in that district quote:Also, yes, if you don't feel Obama is at least more progressive than Bush and Bill Clinton, then you don't know what the gently caress you're talking about. Noam Chomsky posted:"progressive" - which is an empty term quote:How about you defend your assertion that voting third party will accomplish anything, ever? It has yet to accomplish anything at all, aside from being a spoiler of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
People who defend 3rd party, you guys realize this isn't a lifetime film right? There isn't gonna be a speech from the heart from a charismatic leading man to suddenly give your party 20% of the vote. If you were a serious contender, the two major parties would instead change their platform to include you. They'd do it simply on the basis of self-preservation, to cripple an opponent and stay ahead. Now tell me, why don't they do that right now? Why are Republicans not changing their stance to grab Libertarian voters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
People keep claiming that that the democratic party is more progressive than in the past, but I'd argue against that somewhat. On national social issues the democratic party is somewhat lukewarm and on everything else(big business, interventionism) the democratic party is pretty lock step with republicans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:People keep claiming that that the democratic party is more progressive than in the past, but I'd argue against that somewhat. On national social issues the democratic party is somewhat lukewarm and on everything else(big business, interventionism) the democratic party is pretty lock step with republicans. And how do you change that? Hmm?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:People who defend 3rd party, you guys realize this isn't a lifetime film right? There isn't gonna be a speech from the heart from a charismatic leading man to suddenly give your party 20% of the vote. If you were a serious contender, the two major parties would instead change their platform to include you. They'd do it simply on the basis of self-preservation, to cripple an opponent and stay ahead. Now tell me, why don't they do that right now? Why are Republicans not changing their stance to grab Libertarian voters? edit: BarbarianElephant posted:And how do you change that? Hmm?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Voting third party in America wouldn't be throwing away your votes if the third parties were any more that ego-stroking for their leaders. If Jill Stein really wanted to bring about change for the US she wouldn't be running for president she'd be running for mayor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:How about you defend your assertion that voting third party will accomplish anything, ever? It has yet to accomplish anything at all, aside from being a spoiler of course. On the one hand you say that voting third party is spoiler and does nothing and on the other hand you say that democrats are more progressive than they were in the past. So I think its safe to say there might be some correlation between losing in 2000 and moving towards some socially progressive ideals in 2008. Just me though. BarbarianElephant posted:And how do you change that? Hmm? stop voting for republican politicians and democratic politicians two groups of people who's major power base relies on continuing imperialism and making sure business interests are safe and profitable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:People keep claiming that that the democratic party is more progressive than in the past, but I'd argue against that somewhat. On national social issues the democratic party is somewhat lukewarm and on everything else(big business, interventionism) the democratic party is pretty lock step with republicans. If you genuinely believe this you're more interested in arguing against ghosts instead of reality. You can argue the Democrats aren't far left enough for you but that isn't the same as being in lockstep. Doorknob Slobber posted:stop voting for republican politicians and democratic politicians two groups of people who's major power base relies on continuing imperialism and making sure business interests are safe and profitable? So who are you voting for and why do you think that they would become large enough to be significant without having to compromise?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is incorrect, the Democratic party isn't a viable party in that district. How do you think a party becomes viable in a district? By getting more votes. Not enough people vote third party to make that signal strong enough to mean anything, they never will. My question to you is why do you prefer Jill Stein or Gary Johnson over the leading candidates? Gary Johnson is an idiot and just a failed Republican. Libertarians, for that matter, are just secular Republicans who like weed and bitcoin. Jill Stein has never held an actual elected office except on some small town council one time. These are not good candidates. Bernie lost; get over it - I did. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:By always voting for the Democrat regardless of their policies so long as they are marginally better than the Republican? You. Do. Not. Vote. To. Encourage. Policy. Change. You do literally anything else. Write letters, write blogs, organize protests anything besides deciding during voting season that "I'm gonna burn my vote unless the dempublicans do x"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:How do you think a party becomes viable in a district? By getting more votes. quote:Not enough people vote third party to make that signal strong enough to mean anything, they never will. quote:My question to you is why do you prefer Jill Stein or Gary Johnson over the leading candidates? SSNeoman posted:You. Do. Not. Vote. To. Encourage. Policy. Change. quote:You do literally anything else. Write letters, write blogs, organize protests edit: Just to be clear you do understand that casting a vote for President doesn't preclude you from doing literally anything else right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:While this is true, it doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party is not a viable party in Idaho, so it seems like you still have some walking back to do. Further the fact that a party becomes viable in a district by getting more votes is equally true of third parties. How would the Democratic Party become a viable party in Idaho? By getting more votes. If you feel your vote wouldn't matter in Idaho then why not stay home or even throw your vote away on one of the two major parties? You're not defending the idea of voting third party in the way you believe; you're essentially proving it's as meaningless as we're all saying. If you don't prefer any of the third party candidates to the leading candidates, then what are you even arguing for?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:If you genuinely believe this you're more interested in arguing against ghosts instead of reality. You can argue the Democrats aren't far left enough for you but that isn't the same as being in lockstep. On imperialism? The main argument between democrats and republicans seems to be what size bombs we should use on the middle east or how much money we should spend supporting coups and tyrants in South America. soooo progressive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:By always voting for the Democrat regardless of their policies so long as they are marginally better than the Republican? Your vote is never going to make a huge difference because you are one voter in a country of 318 million. Expecting *your* vote to be always the deciding one is naive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:I do. Justify this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:How would the Democratic Party become a viable party in Idaho? By getting more votes. If you feel your vote wouldn't matter in Idaho then why not stay home or even throw your vote away on one of the two major parties? You're not defending the idea of voting third party in the way you believe; you're essentially proving it's as meaningless as we're all saying. Noam Chomsky posted:Voting third party, especially when most of America doesn't even vote, is stupid because your candidate will never, ever loving win AND our third parties have no real local presence to speak of. edits: Noam Chomsky posted:If you don't prefer any of the third party candidates to the leading candidates, then what are you even arguing for? BarbarianElephant posted:Your vote is never going to make a huge difference because you are one voter in a country of 318 million. Expecting *your* vote to be always the deciding one is naive. SSNeoman posted:Justify this. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:The main argument between democrats and republicans seems to be what size bombs we should use on the middle east or how much money we should spend supporting coups and tyrants in South America. soooo progressive. If you don't actually see a difference between the Democrat and Republican policies, even in 2016, then you're dumb. You don't even have to agree with either to not see they are not the same policies. Trying to force a 'they're all the same, the truth is in the middle" is an excuse. Who do you support? Why do you genuinely think they'd be able to implement their policies if elected?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
twodot posted:You asserted: I literally just said that in another post. The difference is that a Democratic president is a theoretical possibility, thus making those votes in Idaho worth more than token votes from a few idiots voting for Gary or Jill. Sending a signal that you'd prefer a Democratic candidate, rather than a Republican, in a red state is more worthwhile than signaling that you'd prefer one of the third party grifters. The major party at least has a GOTV machine it may use more heavily in your state next time if it believes there may be more support there, whereas the third parties have no GOTV machine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
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. The people who are interested enough to vote for third parties often self-select for being people who do not have a useful understanding of effective electoral and party politics, and don't seem very engaged in what it would take to run a party, or build one from the ground-level roots that parties need to come from. If they did, they generally wouldn't be voting third party. More importantly, they would run screaming from the vanity project campaigns of the libertarians and the greens in this election in particular. Stein and Johnson are just running an empty dog-and-pony-show draw for voters in an election that will be historically unkind to the rationality of protest votes. It is just quite simply not the time. Voting third party now is a project for people who are either irrelevant to the presidential election, or who fail to understand the importance of realpolitik, or who don't understand what our voting system even IS. There's nothing else to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:The difference is that a Democratic president is a theoretical possibility, thus making those votes in Idaho worth more than token votes from a few idiots voting for Gary or Jill. quote:Sending a signal that you'd prefer a Democratic candidate, rather than a Republican, in a red state is more worthwhile than signaling that you'd prefer one of the third party grifters. The major party at least has a GOTV machine it may use more heavily in your state next time if it believes there may be more support there, whereas the third parties have no GOTV machine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why does this matter if a Democrat will never win Idaho? Because like it or not popular vote totals still matter in terms of perception and going "my vote doesn't matter!!!" contributes to the mindset that makes other people take the same tone and prevents any sort of incremental shifts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why is this true? You earlier used a standard of "mean anything" what possible result that could "mean anything" could happen from a person voting Clinton in Idaho that couldn't happen from a person voting third party? Pretty sure you just don't understand my answers or are just trying not to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why does this matter if a Democrat will never win Idaho? Why won't you answer my other questions? "Never" isn't a true and automatic assumption. If more Democrats vote in Idaho than Republicans, it goes blue. Do you understand why blue and red states are blue and red?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Because like it or not popular vote totals still matter in terms of perception and going "my vote doesn't matter!!!" contributes to the mindset that makes other people take the same tone and prevents any sort of incremental shifts. Noam Chomsky posted:Pretty sure you just don't understand my answers or are just trying not to. WampaLord posted:"Never" isn't a true and automatic assumption. If more Democrats vote in Idaho than Republicans, it goes blue. quote:Do you understand why blue and red states are blue and red? Bushiz posted:Because of generational and demographic shifts where personal choice is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:If you don't actually see a difference between the Democrat and Republican policies, even in 2016, then you're dumb. You don't even have to agree with either to not see they are not the same policies. Trying to force a 'they're all the same, the truth is in the middle" is an excuse. Did you read my post? I said that on things besides social issues they tend to be lock step. You conveniently left out the part of my post where I'm specifically talking about imperialism. I never even said "THEY ARE THE SAME! SAME I SAY!!!!" I said, on big business and imperialism republicans and democrats tend not to have any sort of real argument that a progressive is interested in, ie reigning in big business and putting an end to imperialism. Is it nice that a democrat would use smaller bombs? Sure I think so, but millions of peoples' lives are still affected negatively by the actions of both parties. Democratic politicians are just as guilty of making GBS threads things up as republican ones. Just in different ways. Democrats are like the short term feel good party. I feel bad about X so I'm going to vote democrat, look at how good a person I am. I feel like the argument that a lot of people say about vote democrat, but work locally is something a lot of the people making the argument should actually do, because they're almost always clearly speaking from a place of no experience trying to actually effect change in a local setting. In the end all I'm arguing against is calling people idiots for wanting to vote for whoever they want without being called idiots. I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for, I don't vote republican or democrat because I find that both parties are responsible for things that 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.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
all voting totals matter
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:In the end all I'm arguing against is calling people idiots for wanting to vote for whoever they want without being called idiots. I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for, I don't vote republican or democrat because I find that both parties are responsible for things that 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. 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 rather think that Presidents Johnson & Stein would not be the peacemakers you might imagine. They are in the happy position of knowing they will never actually be president and will never have to decide whether to wage war or not. Obama has made strenuous efforts to reduce the amount of wars and violence that the USA is involved in, but he still has much blood on his conscience. Choices made in the past have forced the USA into certain entanglements in the Middle East that are not simple to get out of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:Right, popular vote totals matters, and therefore voting third party matters even if they will never win. We agree. And Idaho won't go green because Jill Stein has made no efforts towards making her candidacy or party viable. Being on a town council and hanging out with Putin one time does not make a viable candidate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
K Prime posted:completely worthless except as spoilers against the "next best" candidate, As a Floridian, this is it. You vote Hilldog, the county makes incremental progress and good things can happen. Vote third party and you accomplish nothing *at best* or hand a huge swing state to a future war criminal at worst by being a spoiler. Source: we've done this before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
People are still pretending that losers get a say in governance. They don't. They get nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Yak of Wrath posted:And Idaho won't go green because Jill Stein has made no efforts towards making her candidacy or party viable. Being on a town council and hanging out with Putin one time does not make a viable candidate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yes, and also Idaho won't go blue because statistics exist. My point here is if you think voting only for candidates who can win matters, that leads to ridiculous outcomes in certain areas. If you don't think that voting for someone that can win matters, the argument against voting third party becomes pretty thin. You have to pick one of the two. Arguing you must not vote Green because they can never win, but voting Democrat in Idaho is a good idea doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying don't vote for them because they can't win, I'm saying don't vote for them because they aren't even trying to win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yes, and also Idaho won't go blue because statistics exist. My point here is if you think voting only for candidates who can win matters, that leads to ridiculous outcomes in certain areas. If you don't think that voting for someone that can win matters, the argument against voting third party becomes pretty thin. You have to pick one of the two. Arguing you must not vote Green because they can never win, but voting Democrat in Idaho is a good idea doesn't make any sense. Arizona and Georgia were two "never go blue" states that might go blue this election, which kind of defeats your point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Who cares who you "vote" for in Idaho. You don't get a vote in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:Arizona and Georgia were two "never go blue" states that might go blue this election, which kind of defeats your point. Bushiz posted:Because of generational and demographic shifts where personal choice is meaningless. Yak of Wrath posted:I'm not saying don't vote for them because they can't win, I'm saying don't vote for them because they aren't even trying to win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 20:10
|
|