Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«43 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Teriyaki Koinku
Nov 25, 2008



For the sake of containment, I'd like to devote an entire DnD thread to the topic of "lesser of two evils" voting.

Please discuss the ramifications of the United States' 'First-past-the-post' style of elections, the two-party system it encourages, and whether or not voting should be obligatory or if abstaining from voting (or voting third-party) to protest this is considered worthwhile.

Considering nearly 45% of eligible voters did not vote in the 2016 Presidential election, there seems to be a strong message being sent by American voters on this matter, in my personal opinion.



As always, please debate and discuss.

E: please also consider primary voting versus general election voting!

E2: Also noteworthy to talk about spoiler candidates plus voting in other countries not limited to the US (eg: France, etc).

E3:

Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at Feb 15, 2018 around 20:42

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Riptor
Apr 13, 2003

here's to feelin' good all the time


I fully support mandatory voting, provided it's a 1 for this thread

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Stairmaster
Jun 8, 2012



Riptor posted:

I fully support mandatory voting, provided it's a 1 for this thread

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

phasmid
Jan 16, 2015
As a furry I'm ashamed to admit I would love to fuck Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty sure she's a human. Besides if she is a lizard the term for that is scalie and those guys/gals are totally icky. Who the fuck would want to fuck a lizard? Ewwwww. That being said GOD DAMN she is hot.

I think a good thing would be to make sure that each party didn't represent the same agenda, because that makes voting in national elections utterly meaningless.

Owlofcreamcheese
May 22, 2005
I'm a rapist defender and I work with your kids


phasmid posted:

I think a good thing would be to make sure that each party didn't represent the same agenda, because that makes voting in national elections utterly meaningless.

Southpark is a dangerous chemical that harms brain growth in children.

phasmid
Jan 16, 2015
As a furry I'm ashamed to admit I would love to fuck Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty sure she's a human. Besides if she is a lizard the term for that is scalie and those guys/gals are totally icky. Who the fuck would want to fuck a lizard? Ewwwww. That being said GOD DAMN she is hot.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Southpark is a dangerous chemical that harms brain growth in children.

The rebuttal of someone who doesn't have many worries. Hope you don't get ever caught in a riot.

Owlofcreamcheese
May 22, 2005
I'm a rapist defender and I work with your kids


phasmid posted:

The rebuttal of someone who doesn't have many worries. Hope you don't get ever caught in a riot.

There is plenty of hot takes you can still be making if you really must, but it feels hard to believe anyone in 2018 is still trying to beat the "both parties are the same" drum.

phasmid
Jan 16, 2015
As a furry I'm ashamed to admit I would love to fuck Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty sure she's a human. Besides if she is a lizard the term for that is scalie and those guys/gals are totally icky. Who the fuck would want to fuck a lizard? Ewwwww. That being said GOD DAMN she is hot.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

There is plenty of hot takes you can still be making if you really must, but it feels hard to believe anyone in 2018 is still trying to beat the "both parties are the same" drum.

It seems truer now than it has been in decades. There's so much corruption it can't even be hidden, everyone's in bed against the common enemy: the poor. I used to think the Democrats were incompetent, but these days I feel that they're letting the Republicans win by design. As long as their constituents believe they're trying, they can have their cake and eat it too.

viral spiral
Sep 19, 2017

by R. Guyovich


Owlofcreamcheese posted:

There is plenty of hot takes you can still be making if you really must, but it feels hard to believe anyone in 2018 is still trying to beat the "both parties are the same" drum.

They fundamentally are on economics; don't pretend otherwise with your silly South Park jabs, you goober.

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

Ti, to. Ti, ovo.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

There is plenty of hot takes you can still be making if you really must, but it feels hard to believe anyone in 2018 is still trying to beat the "both parties are the same" drum.

Neither is socialist so...

Doctor Butts
May 21, 2002

AFC NORTH PITY FUCK


phasmid posted:

It seems truer now than it has been in decades. There's so much corruption it can't even be hidden, everyone's in bed against the common enemy: the poor. I used to think the Democrats were incompetent, but these days I feel that they're letting the Republicans win by design. As long as their constituents believe they're trying, they can have their cake and eat it too.

whoooo boy

viral spiral
Sep 19, 2017

by R. Guyovich


Flowers For Algeria posted:

Neither is socialist so...

It's always funny when people still pretend the DNC and Hillary would have reigned in banks, corporate power, monopolies, and Wall Street if elected, even though the DNC and Hillary took more money from all of them than Trump did.

But no guys, the two parties are different!

phasmid
Jan 16, 2015
As a furry I'm ashamed to admit I would love to fuck Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty sure she's a human. Besides if she is a lizard the term for that is scalie and those guys/gals are totally icky. Who the fuck would want to fuck a lizard? Ewwwww. That being said GOD DAMN she is hot.


The prevailing attitude: if I have to explain it to you, you're not good enough to understand anyway. Well done. Does someone have a real reason the "lesser of two evils" is a valid argument? What do you do when one evil says you can only have water and the other says you can only have food? No one's really explained to me how the parties are helping ordinary people. Folks just throw around their go-to insults.

viral spiral posted:

It's always funny when people still pretend the DNC and Hillary would have reigned in banks, corporate power, monopolies, and Wall Street if elected, even though the DNC and Hillary took more money from all of them than Trump did.

But no guys, the two parties are different!
It seems to me that the idea that the parties are different is crucial to their power. That's what's so insulting when some fucktard gives me a one-off reply and thinks it's going to make me go "gee, that idiot online was right, I should just never question that thing again".

Mister Fister
May 17, 2008

It'd be kinda like the Queen Cersei shaming scene. Hillary would be 'reborn' again after going through that gauntlet.




Nothing he said was controversial. Republicans win because they'll promise to gently caress over their enemies and then actually do it. Democrats act like they're afraid of their own shadows. Probably because most Democrats in congress are wealthy themselves and, as Nancy Pelosi admitted, "we're capitalists". Democrats are controlled opposition at best.

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

Ti, to. Ti, ovo.

I really want to tell my personal story here

Back in may of 2017, I was ordered to vote for the lesser evil in the presidential election of my country. The choice was simple: vote for Macron even if you think he's evil, because Le Pen is literally the Devil.
In the 9 months since his election, Macron managed to be so comically evil that I've regretted it really hard.
- He has passed several laws and a budget that literally benefit only a tiny fraction of the population, at the expense of many people, including a bunch of my former colleagues and my aunt (my aunt is retired and earns about 1200 euros every month, and 40 of these euros have vanished since January). The fucker is about to lay waste to the public hospital sector. It is ghastly.
- He has worsened the living conditions of refugees and migrants in the country. The police literally slashes their tents, poisons their water with tear gas, and breaks up food distribution lines. In the middle of the loving winter. The subsidies of charities who help migrants are severely cut. Literally 100% (and I'm not exaggerating here) of the people who work at the National Court for the Right of Asylum have gone on strike to protest against the immigration law the government is preparing.
- He is keeping in his government a dude who, by his own admission, has traded sexual favors with a woman in exchange for an intervention on her criminal record. A promise which, by the way, was a lie.

So gently caress anyone who defends voting for the "lesser evil".

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

Ti, to. Ti, ovo.

I really want to highlight something important here:

The FN, the Devil party, the one that was so horribly evil that it was a Moral Imperative to vote against them, actually supports what the Minister of the Interior (and to a lesser extent, the Minister of Education) is doing in re: migrants.

Owlofcreamcheese
May 22, 2005
I'm a rapist defender and I work with your kids


Mister Fister posted:

Nothing he said was controversial.

Right now is one of the most politically polarized times in all of US history, The number of votes that go on anything but pure party lines is lower than it's ever been. Of all the lazy opinions possible "both parties are the same" is the dumbest and laziest possible one in 2018.

Like, you can say you don't like the agenda of either, and want something else, but they are demonstrably as polarized and in conflict as has ever been to the point it's tearing the country apart with wild policy swings between administrations.

phasmid
Jan 16, 2015
As a furry I'm ashamed to admit I would love to fuck Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty sure she's a human. Besides if she is a lizard the term for that is scalie and those guys/gals are totally icky. Who the fuck would want to fuck a lizard? Ewwwww. That being said GOD DAMN she is hot.

Then explain why it is that everyone in America wants better health care but nobody is getting it? Why everyone wants more jobs, but they aren't coming? That we don't want to be embroiled in conflicts, yet it keeps happening?

Are you implying that half the country wants no healthcare, no jobs and expensive military ventures we can't afford?

It's lazy and dumb, in my view, to give one side a pass because you like their rhetoric slightly more.

Mister Fister
May 17, 2008

It'd be kinda like the Queen Cersei shaming scene. Hillary would be 'reborn' again after going through that gauntlet.



Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Right now is one of the most politically polarized times in all of US history, The number of votes that go on anything but pure party lines is lower than it's ever been. Of all the lazy opinions possible "both parties are the same" is the dumbest and laziest possible one in 2018.

Like, you can say you don't like the agenda of either, and want something else, but they are demonstrably as polarized and in conflict as has ever been to the point it's tearing the country apart with wild policy swings between administrations.

I don't think anyone is saying both parties are the same, but clearly both parties support the rich over everyone else. The Democrats will throw some bread crumbs to the poor, but that's about it.

When the 2 options are getting punched in the face and shot in the face, is it any wonder why people aren't exactly enthused (even if one is obviously preferable to the other)?

awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005



Pillbug

Flowers For Algeria posted:

I really want to tell my personal story here

Back in may of 2017, I was ordered to vote for the lesser evil in the presidential election of my country. The choice was simple: vote for Macron even if you think he's evil, because Le Pen is literally the Devil.
In the 9 months since his election, Macron managed to be so comically evil that I've regretted it really hard.
- He has passed several laws and a budget that literally benefit only a tiny fraction of the population, at the expense of many people, including a bunch of my former colleagues and my aunt (my aunt is retired and earns about 1200 euros every month, and 40 of these euros have vanished since January). The fucker is about to lay waste to the public hospital sector. It is ghastly.
- He has worsened the living conditions of refugees and migrants in the country. The police literally slashes their tents, poisons their water with tear gas, and breaks up food distribution lines. In the middle of the loving winter. The subsidies of charities who help migrants are severely cut. Literally 100% (and I'm not exaggerating here) of the people who work at the National Court for the Right of Asylum have gone on strike to protest against the immigration law the government is preparing.
- He is keeping in his government a dude who, by his own admission, has traded sexual favors with a woman in exchange for an intervention on her criminal record. A promise which, by the way, was a lie.

So gently caress anyone who defends voting for the "lesser evil".

are you arguing that le pen would have been better?

Mister Fister
May 17, 2008

It'd be kinda like the Queen Cersei shaming scene. Hillary would be 'reborn' again after going through that gauntlet.



awesmoe posted:

are you arguing that le pen would have been better?

How can you read that and conclude that's what he's saying.

Instant Sunrise
Apr 12, 2007


Keep the skies clear for me.




Fun Shoe

The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that the lesser evil is still evil.

Because of the electoral college in the US and the layer of abstraction it provides to presidential voting, I don't see third parties having a big spoiler effect on presidential races, since it's completely meaningless if somebody in a safe blue or red state like California or Wyoming decides to vote of Gloria La Riva or write in Bernie over voting for Hillary.

With that said, there have been cases where a spoiler candidate has led to some really poo poo outcomes, like the gubernatorial race in Maine, where the current republican governor, Paul LePage, was elected with a plurality of 37.6% of the vote.

That is why ranked choice voting is such a good idea. Because it's better able to figure out the will of the electorate by taking into account descending preferences. Somebody who voted for Bernie probably would have preferred Hillary over Trump, and a ranked choice ballot takes that into consideration.

Flowers For Algeria
Dec 3, 2005

Ti, to. Ti, ovo.

awesmoe posted:

are you arguing that le pen would have been better?

I'm arguing that the reason we hate Le Pen and would never in a million year vote for Le Pen is not because her name is Le Pen and her party is the Front National, but because her and her party's ideology is odious and reprehensible and gross and her opponent, who was painted as the last bastion against fascism, is literally turning whole sections of her ideology into public policy while still telling you that she is odious and reprehensible and gross
So gently caress him and gently caress her. I ain't ever voting for any more devils. The next time I'm faced with a choice like this I'll literally poo poo in the envelope and put it in the ballot box, then document it and post it here.

FilthyImp
Sep 30, 2002


Mister Fister posted:

When the 2 options are getting punched in the face and shot in the face, is it any wonder why people aren't exactly enthused (even if one is obviously preferable to the other)?
I think it comes down to being removed enough from some of the negatives that you can live with the milquetoast positives that the lesser evil brings.

My buddy absolutely excoriated Clinton for her calculated punditry and, more damning to her, the policies she proposed that had an adverse effect on C/S America and the Middle East. She didn't want whatever progress would be made under the dems to come at the expense of the communities she was involved with.

Which, I get. But the other side is saying some of those communities are monsters who are murderers and rapists and is actively working to get them out of the country as fast and as inhumanely as possible.

You can say that both sides are steaming cauldrons of corruption, but one side is actively working to make that enormously worse. You can bemoan the Clintons skimming from their foundation, or using their political prestige to cozy up to the banker class [and yeah, we should absolutely work for a higher standard], but I like to think she would never appoint a non-qualified campaign donor to a top position like Trump did with DeVos, that the damage done to the State Department wouldn't have happened, that Hillary wouldn't be running off to her estate every other weekend, or positioning her investments to transparently and blatantly make dosh off of her position.

Even the economic argument is starting to fall flat, with the abject raiding of the middle class for 1% profits, or the gall at proposing the dismantling of Subsidized Loans for college-going individuals/letting CHiP expire.


phasmid posted:

Are you implying that half the country wants no healthcare, no jobs and expensive military ventures we can't afford?
I think it's pretty plain that a segment of the voting populace is in favor of "things that help us, but only when it's people like me" and will grind more (for lack of a better word) egalitarian programs to dust to get it.
Whether that's exactly half the country or a portion that helps steer things that way is up for debate.


phasmid posted:

Does someone have a real reason the "lesser of two evils" is a valid argument?
Presumably because the Greater Evil is really loving bad, in my opinion. Like, if you give me a binary choice between Mitt Romney and Joe Arpaio, I'll pull the level for Romney.

I loving hate Romney's economic policies, and I question the kind of people he'd put in charge of the Federal Government (and what kind of knock-on effects that would have down the line), but Arpaio would be demonstrably worse in just about every respect.

quote:

What do you do when one evil says you can only have water and the other says you can only have food?
It takes 10 days to die of thirst, and 30-40 to die of starvation. So water, since that'll have the most immediate effect?

quote:

No one's really explained to me how the parties are helping ordinary people.
When you consider ordinary people it gets complicated, because you can say that Cash to Clunkers helped some people but also say that it was emblematic of a bailout that was too small and too focused on the wrong things. Similarly, you can say that Obama's presidency provided much needed stability, but that stability came at the cost of stagnant wages, the birth of the gig economy, and an overall death of upward mobility or support for those hardest hit. And again you can argue that they didn't move up, but they didn't collapse in on themselves as it looked like 2007-08 wa poised to facilitate.

It's clear the Democratic party's moved to a more centrist, conservative, moderate position economically, and their relationship to labor really needs an overhaul. But they at least give lip service to some of the programs that help the vulnerable in our messed up society (funding PBS, keeping Meals on Wheels working) instead of actively clawing at the dessicated strands of our social net..

Nevvy Z
Jan 3, 2004



Flowers For Algeria posted:

I'm arguing that the reason we hate Le Pen and would never in a million year vote for Le Pen is not because her name is Le Pen and her party is the Front National, but because her and her party's ideology is odious and reprehensible and gross and her opponent, who was painted as the last bastion against fascism, is literally turning whole sections of her ideology into public policy while still telling you that she is odious and reprehensible and gross
So gently caress him and gently caress her. I ain't ever voting for any more devils. The next time I'm faced with a choice like this I'll literally poo poo in the envelope and put it in the ballot box, then document it and post it here.

Yeah but he'll pickup two Le Pen voters.

captainblastum
Dec 1, 2004
Something Witty

Grimey Drawer

The question isn't "do all of these candidates suck" it's "do all of these candidates suck the same amount" and the answer is no, they do not suck the same amount. Republicans, National Front, Golden Dawn, etc, all suck way way more than their counterparts, and are inarguably, demonstrably worse.

Deciding not to vote for anybody because you don't like them is reasonable (though I disagree with it), but claiming that there are no differences is willfully ignorant.

Owlofcreamcheese
May 22, 2005
I'm a rapist defender and I work with your kids


Instant Sunrise posted:

The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that the lesser evil is still evil.

Just declaring both parties "evil" and then smugly feeling above it all seems like the same sort of thing as those guys that just go "I'm not a democrat or a republican, I'm an INDEPENDENT" then basically always have exactly pure conservative beliefs.

I am sure everyone on earth disagrees substantially with every political party that contains any members other than themselves. But one party or the other almost certainly better reflects your policy positions in very major ways.

Like if you are a single issue voter and your single issue is "full communism now" neither party is going to be fully what you want, but it's pretty obvious one is far more what you don't want.

phasmid
Jan 16, 2015
As a furry I'm ashamed to admit I would love to fuck Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty sure she's a human. Besides if she is a lizard the term for that is scalie and those guys/gals are totally icky. Who the fuck would want to fuck a lizard? Ewwwww. That being said GOD DAMN she is hot.


Your post and points are well-taken and I'm glad someone decided to flesh it out instead of hand-waving it away. However, there's a problem. When these evils become worse, their corruption will be viewed (correctly) as something preventable. We will see very real Fascism in the states, not just the grumbling of a few right-wing cranks, because their leadership will say "See? Democracy just gives way to this kind of thing! One side sets you up and the other knocks you down. They were in cahoots the whole time." Even though it's reductive and not always true, by that time the outrage will be even more palpable than it is now. People will want solutions, sweeping reforms - and they'll get them.

To me, trying to work inside the system is just as bad as being accelerationist. The latter wants things to just blow up now, rip the bandaid off, whatever you'd call it. But that would be a painful, deadly process and nowhere near as quick as some would have us believe. The former calls for patience, saying "we can fix it" all the while undermining real populism and socialist moves for a fairer system. They only do this, in my view, because it's more time to line their pockets before the ugliness really erupts.

I remember hearing people I grew up with talking about joining the workforce after school, none of them going into their chosen fields and more or less unhappy that they had to get the same lousy jobs as undegreed people. They talked about hating corporate culture, but then they told themselves that they could "work within the system" to change it into something better. In reality, all they've done is given it a friendlier face. The teeth socketed therein are sharper than ever.

Instant Sunrise
Apr 12, 2007


Keep the skies clear for me.




Fun Shoe

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Like if you are a single issue voter and your single issue is "full communism now" neither party is going to be fully what you want, but it's pretty obvious one is far more what you don't want.

Exactly. But in something like a general election between a milquetoast center-right candidate and a straight up actual fascist, the battle is already lost and the only thing to do there is to stem the bleeding, but even a lesser evil is still evil, and that means staying involved politically and holding your politicians feet to the fire.

The nice thing about ranked choice voting is that it would work better for the single issue voter who's single issue is "full communism now," because they could cast their first choice for the Full Communism Now candidate, followed by the liberal candidate, and the more "electable" center-left candidate, and so on down the list until you put the straight up actual fascist at the very bottom in the "oh hell no" spot on the ballot.

Condiv
May 7, 2008


i'm of the opinion that voting for the lesser evil enables said evil to maintain and/or grow its control over the dem party. for example, the dem party apparatus being used to block progressive candidates and help manchins and emmanuels be elected instead. the manchins and emmanuels of the dem party then use what influence you give them by electing them to make sure you will never get a choice but them.

CarlCX
Dec 14, 2003

this is a job for the Punk

It is not only possible but ethical to serve both continua simultaneously. Be constantly dissatisfied with your political parties, get involved with your politics, agitate constantly for change and support independent options, especially in local elections that give them a much better chance for success. Hell, agitate for changing polling laws and systems to make them more favorable to a wider subset of options. Serve your conscience.

When the flawed systems that currently exist narrow down to a subset of suboptimal choices that do not serve your conscience, support the candidate who is closest to your ideology, which is hopefully not sympathetic to monstrous bigotry, cruelty and inequality. That closeness may come down to "is marginally less likely to inflict suffering" and you may find this personally dissatisfying. You are right to be dissatisfied. You should vote for it anyway. It is the better choice for the world outside of your head.

Condiv
May 7, 2008


CarlCX posted:

It is not only possible but ethical to serve both continua simultaneously. Be constantly dissatisfied with your political parties, get involved with your politics, agitate constantly for change and support independent options, especially in local elections that give them a much better chance for success. Hell, agitate for changing polling laws and systems to make them more favorable to a wider subset of options. Serve your conscience.

When the flawed systems that currently exist narrow down to a subset of suboptimal choices that do not serve your conscience, support the candidate who is closest to your ideology, which is hopefully not sympathetic to monstrous bigotry, cruelty and inequality. That closeness may come down to "is marginally less likely to inflict suffering" and you may find this personally dissatisfying. You are right to be dissatisfied. You should vote for it anyway. It is the better choice for the world outside of your head.

disagreed. in a better world you would be right, but the sad fact is that those "suboptimal" choices reinforce themselves. they become incumbents with institutional advantages protecting them from being primaried, they work to help make sure more suboptimal candidates are elected and perpetuate their ideology, and they do not respond to your calls for change. see for example, one joe manchin. he yelled at activists to primary him if they wanted things to change cause he certainly wasn't going to. one's now running, but she has an extremely uphill battle against her cause manchin has massive institutional advantages in the dem party, despite being about as far from what the dem party is supposed to represent as possible.

viral spiral
Sep 19, 2017

by R. Guyovich


Condiv posted:

i'm of the opinion that voting for the lesser evil enables said evil to maintain and/or grow its control over the dem party. for example, the dem party apparatus being used to block progressive candidates and help manchins and emmanuels be elected instead. the manchins and emmanuels of the dem party then use what influence you give them by electing them to make sure you will never get a choice but them.

This. The current Democratic Party is nothing more than a neoliberal technocrat Party. Voting for them is like voting for Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg for President; indeed, they don't talk poo poo about minorities and the poor (at least publicly), but they're doing everything they can behind to scenes do destroy labor and labor rights in order to maximize profits. The Dems have shown no intention of doing anything about the wealth gap; there's simply too much money to made for the DNC by taking hundreds of millions of dollars from Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

Did I mention the DNC seems to be even more pro-war than the loving RNC over the last couple of years?

Mister Fister
May 17, 2008

It'd be kinda like the Queen Cersei shaming scene. Hillary would be 'reborn' again after going through that gauntlet.



As the Democratic party moves further to the right, the Republican party has to go even more extreme to differentiate themselves. The Democrats are part of the reason why the Republican party is a nihilistic death cult right now. Obama was not incorrect when he said the Democrats of today are moderate republicans from the 80's.

socialsecurity
Aug 30, 2003


viral spiral posted:

This. The current Democratic Party is nothing more than a neoliberal technocrat Party. Voting for them is like voting for Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg for President; indeed, they don't talk poo poo about minorities and the poor (at least publicly), but they're doing everything they can behind to scenes do destroy labor and labor rights in order to maximize profits. The Dems have shown no intention of doing anything about the wealth gap; there's simply too much money to made for the DNC by taking hundreds of millions of dollars from Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

Did I mention the DNC seems to be even more pro-war than the loving RNC over the last couple of years?

Give a single example of the DNC being more pro-war then the RNC.

Owlofcreamcheese
May 22, 2005
I'm a rapist defender and I work with your kids


viral spiral posted:

This. The current Democratic Party is nothing more than a neoliberal technocrat Party. Voting for them is like voting for Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg for President;

You know the word "technocrat" has nothing to do with web apps or technology people, right?

Grr those democrats! Always hiring climate scientists to make decisions on climate policy and economists to make economic decisions! what scoundrels!

awesmoe
Nov 30, 2005



Pillbug

Flowers For Algeria posted:

I'm arguing that the reason we hate Le Pen and would never in a million year vote for Le Pen is not because her name is Le Pen and her party is the Front National, but because her and her party's ideology is odious and reprehensible and gross and her opponent, who was painted as the last bastion against fascism, is literally turning whole sections of her ideology into public policy while still telling you that she is odious and reprehensible and gross
So gently caress him and gently caress her. I ain't ever voting for any more devils. The next time I'm faced with a choice like this I'll literally poo poo in the envelope and put it in the ballot box, then document it and post it here.

but at that point in the voting process, your options are someone who will implement some of her hateful policies or someone who will implement all of her hateful policies
or you don't vote, and then the greater evil wins and things are worse (see trump, donald)
it would be great if those weren't the outcomes

7c Nickel
Apr 27, 2008
This poster just loves shitposting in Negrotown.


Mister Fister posted:

As the Democratic party moves further to the right, the Republican party has to go even more extreme to differentiate themselves. The Democrats are part of the reason why the Republican party is a nihilistic death cult right now. Obama was not incorrect when he said the Democrats of today are moderate republicans from the 80's.

Really? Where has the the Democratic party been moving to the right? The 2016 platform was the farthest left its been in multiple decades.

viral spiral
Sep 19, 2017

by R. Guyovich


socialsecurity posted:

Give a single example of the DNC being more pro-war then the RNC.
Libya.

The DNC's Russophobia scare is doing wonders for those Defense Contractor coffers right now, for one. Also, the DNC's record on helping Israel exterminate Palestinians is just as bad as the RNC's, too.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

You know the word "technocrat" has nothing to do with web apps or technology people, right?

Grr those democrats! Always hiring climate scientists to make decisions on climate policy and economists to make economic decisions! what scoundrels!

I don't think you know what technocrat means.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Condiv
May 7, 2008


awesmoe posted:

but at that point in the voting process, your options are someone who will implement some of her hateful policies or someone who will implement all of her hateful policies
or you don't vote, and then the greater evil wins and things are worse (see trump, donald)
it would be great if those weren't the outcomes

those are the only outcomes because lesser evilism is rewarded with votes. you can't expect things to change if the lesser evil can always count on your vote as long as they're a hair away from the greater evil. that's why macron and co feel free to implement lepen's fascist policies.

it's not like the fascists won big time or anything in france, or the right did well in the election. in fact, lrem swept most of the seats. so why are they implementing fascist policy unless they feel they can get away with it because.... they're the lesser evil

Condiv fucked around with this message at Feb 14, 2018 around 00:01

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«43 »