Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 11-24-2019, 01:30 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
You know I could vote Dem if they werenít so hell bent on racing towards socialism. Quite a bit of the ideas are good. But as a package itís completely unpalatable and thatís a damn shame.
We have been a hybrid which includes socialism in it for decades. The so called socialists or more accurately "democratic socialists", who are in office now are looking towards the scandinavian countries successes with socialist programs. We already know they work, and we are already there anyway in terms of socialism. Not to mention the grotesque failure of "trickle down economics" for decades as well.

I think that the main "racing towards socialism" meme comes from the effect of having a mad president and having younger pols taking some action against the abuses of the levers of capitalism under such a person.

Let's face it: dt is the emergency at all times. If it ever slows down he fixes that very quickly, by tweet or worse. The rest of the country including dem politicians are just dealing with it.
  #202  
Old 11-24-2019, 05:47 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
You know I could vote Dem if they weren’t so hell bent on racing towards socialism. Quite a bit of the ideas are good. But as a package it’s completely unpalatable and that’s a damn shame.
I oppose Socialism but, at the same time, it is the case that Sweden is not Hell on Earth and, you might note, there is a difference between President and God-Emperor of the Planet. The former has to deal with a few hundred people - a goodly number from Texas - to get anything done, unless we're talking about where to send troops to and how much to budget for them.

To a large extent, you're better off to just focus on the question of where they'd send the troops and what budget they'd ask for them. Everything else, really, is meant to be left up to the states and generally is. Just vote for states-rightists in the House and Senate.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 11-24-2019 at 05:48 PM.
  #203  
Old 11-25-2019, 06:13 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
You know I could vote Dem if they werenít so hell bent on racing towards socialism.
When the alternative is a party hellbent on racing towards fascism, the Democrats don't look so bad at all. Particularly as what the US right-wing consider "radical socialism" is "basic center-left politics" for most of the Western world.
  #204  
Old 11-25-2019, 07:04 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,992
In a country with public education, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, progressive income taxes, Social Security, and interstates, the fight against socialism is long since over. "Socialism" is just a bugaboo, a scare word thrown up by people in lieu of arguing against the merits of a specific proposal.
  #205  
Old 11-25-2019, 08:13 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
My criteria include, but are not limited to:

1) Generally considered moderate on most issues.
What does this mean? No, seriously, what is a "moderate"? Someone who sees the Trump administration's position of "climate change is a chinese hoax", the left accurately describing climate change as an existential threat to modern civilization and thinks, "Hmm, maybe a minor carbon tax will help"? Is this somehow "moderate"? Because a minor carbon tax will not solve the problem, and in the face of the consequences of climate change, not solving the problem seems pretty fucking extreme to me.

Quote:
2) No support for any form of gun ban, whether limited to "assault weapons" or not.
3) No support for any form of gun registration or licensing .
That doesn't sound like a "moderate" position. That's an extremely unpopular right-wing position. Nearly 3 in 4 Americans support a gun registry. 61% support banning high-capacity magazines; 57% support banning "assault weapons".

So you're looking for a candidate you can vote for. They have to be "moderates" in most regards, but also favor an extremely unpopular right-wing position on guns. Hmm. And that's what it'll take for you to vote for a democrat. Sorry, "Democrat".

Now, not to say that you're being disingenuous, you may be entirely candid here, but I will say that it's noteworthy there's an entire right-wing ecosystem of people writing articles with exactly this kind of premise. "Gosh, I'd love to vote against Trump, but..." They are, much like you, by and large lifetime republicans. Occasionally, they're misrepresented as "swing voters" when they are, in fact, hardline Trump supporters (The New York Times does this with the same group of hardline Trump supporters pretty often). It's also worth noting that these concerned republican voices who would love to vote for democrats if the democrats weren't so darn radical seemingly have no qualms about Donald Trump's radicalism, dishonesty, use of the government for personal profit, et cetera. In fact, Jamelle Bouie mocked this exact kind of nonsense in an article that was more a subtweet of his fellow opinion columnist Bret Stephens than anything else.

But forget all that. Let's assume you're being entirely candid here, and you really are looking for a democratic candidate you could support, but have certain wants and needs.

Here is why you should vote for a democrat: because the alternative is Donald Trump.

That's it. That's all you should need. That's all any decent human being who is even remotely up-to-date on modern politics should need. Trump is not some normal candidate.

You should vote for a democrat because...

The alternative is a president who is advised by (multiple!) neo-nazis and implementing policies they support.

The alternative is a president who is, at the urging of said neo-nazis, running concentration camps where tens of thousands of children are being separated from their families (and many are being forcibly adopted out - stolen from their families by an adoption agency linked to Trump's SecEd).

The alternative is a president who consistently uses the government for personal gain, nearly going so far as to award himself a multimillion-dollar government contract, and making policy moves that look an awful lot like he's getting bribed by foreign governments.

The alternative is a president who is currently being impeached because he withheld aid to an ally in order to execute a personal bribe to further his political campaign with it.

The alternative is a president who is not only ignorant of science, but actively spiteful to it, denying the threat of climate change during one of the last times where we can still stave off the worst of it (and also more garden-variety, low-to-the-ground shit, like demanding impossible scientific standards of the EPA in order to junk important environmental regulations).

The alternative is a president who lies, constantly, about matters both large and small, from the impact of his tax plan to the number of people at his inauguration to the size of his hands. A president who clearly is not mentally well, and who shows many serious signs of significant mental decline. A president who gets his talking points directly from spending hours every day watching Fox News.

(If any of this shit sounds almost cartoonishly bad... Well, yeah, it is, and I'm wondering if that's not part of the point. Call it the "Matilda" principle. People might have believed Trunchbull spanking or hitting kids. Nobody would believe that she put them in "the chokey" or tossed a girl out the window by her pigtails. But it's real, and we cannot ignore it. Everything I've brought up here is well-documented and extremely serious.)

It's not a question of "will this democrat be better than a random republican". It's "will this republican be better than the kleptocratic, deeply corrupt, neo-nazi-affiliated, bottom-of-the-barrel bullshit we currently have on display".

And the fact that you look at that and say, "Ehhhhh, but what if the other guy will take away slightly regulate my expensive murder toys?!" should be read as nothing less than a deeply damning enditement of your political views. With all due respect, fuck your guns, there is more important shit going on.

This is, of course, assuming that you're being entirely candid with us, unlike people like Bret Stephens or organizations like the National Review. And even if you are... Sorry, fam. Your views are deeply unpopular and there's no real reason to cater to people like you, people still on the fence as to whether or not we should vote out the guy who keeps building concentration camps and is being advised by neo-nazis on how to do it, when it comes to who we should run. If your response to Trump is to whine, "If only the democrats would run a candidate who, all things considered, is basically just what a moderate republican was 5 years ago*", maybe you should build grassroots support for a republican primary challenger. Don't expect us to water down our candidate looking for your fleeting and questionable support. Instead, we're going to go looking for the people who are disenfranchised and disenchanted - say, the people who aren't particularly political, but are also really sick of needing their children to undergo live shooter drills. Again, when polled, democratic policies are vastly more popular than republican policies. Tacking towards the center does not help us here.

Also, while you may be being entirely honest with us and this is a good-faith attempt to move away from Trump... even outside the pundit class, most of the time you see this kind of framing, it's not really honest. Rather, it's Trump supporters justifying their vote to themselves. "Oh, sure, Trump is bad, but I considered voting Dem if only they'd act more moderate [here meaning: like republicans], and they refused, so I guess we're stuck with Trump." To the point where it's basically a meme. (And, y'know, an explicit call of far-right propagandists on chan boards, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.)

TL;DR: anyone not already moved to vote for a democrat by how awful Trump is probably isn't really looking for more convincing, and there simply are no good reasons to offer them any ground on that. Their positions are unpopular, and with good reason, and claims that they need more convincing are usually but not always dishonest attempts to frame a narrative or absolve themselves of any guilt they might feel in voting for Donald Trump. I can't speak to the OP's intentions, but I can say that if he wants a "mostly moderate" person who is an opponent to gun control, he should consider pushing for a primary challenge to Donald Trump, or, failing that, accept that sometimes, there are things that are more important than whether or not you are allowed to own the shiniest, most effective murder toys. And if that's a red line for you, but you won't draw a red line on all the shit Trump is doing, your politics are fucked and your morals are cruel and evil.



*Note: your estimation of what a republican was 5 years ago is probably fairly far removed from the reality of what a republican was 5 years ago. It was always pretty nasty.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 11-25-2019 at 08:15 AM.
  #206  
Old 11-25-2019, 08:29 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
When the alternative is a party hellbent on racing towards fascism, the Democrats don't look so bad at all. Particularly as what the US right-wing consider "radical socialism" is "basic center-left politics" for most of the Western world.
I'm not the first person to note that when given the choice between socialism and fascism, capitalists tend to side with the latter.

This is actually kind of exactly the sort of thing I was mentioning in my above post when talking about Trump supporters justifying their vote to themselves. "Gosh, Trump is bad, but y'know, the opposition is SOCIALISTS!!1!, so I absolutely have to vote against that."

I have no doubt that octopus genuinely believes that. And if the line was, instead, that you absolutely have to vote against the democrats because, I dunno, they are pushing for infanticide, I'm sure he'd genuinely believe that, too. It's not true, obviously, but that doesn't matter. For the purpose of this kind of discussion it never does. The democrats are bad because <insert reason here>, therefore I am justified in voting for Trump, regardless of what bad things he does." It absolves you of guilt for doing something truly awful, and that's what they're looking for.

This sort of thing is dime-a-dozen in postmodern conservatism. Arguing against it as though these people were earnestly looking for a reason not to vote for Trump is a fool's game. It is worth remembering that, in all my time here, I cannot recall octopus ever overtly opposing a Trump policy. I'll leave any conclusions to be drawn from that to the reader.

(It also works as disturbingly effective propaganda when printed in the media for the old guard of democrats who lived through the Reagan era and are terrified that any step to the left will make their electorate abandon them en masse. That's why you keep seeing dozens of copies of the same dumb op-ed - right-wingers in the media are doing this shit on purpose.)

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 11-25-2019 at 08:30 AM.
  #207  
Old 11-25-2019, 08:38 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
In a country with public education, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, progressive income taxes, Social Security, and interstates, the fight against socialism is long since over. "Socialism" is just a bugaboo, a scare word thrown up by people in lieu of arguing against the merits of a specific proposal.
Please donít misrepresent my point of view. I donít use socialism as a scare word. No more than others on this forum use fascism, with absolutely no pushback, as a scare word.

When I hear open borders and free everything it sounds like socialism to me. Iím not a fan. Iím also not a fan with claiming to be following the constitution yet ignoring every Ďtroublingí aspect of it when convenient to do so.

Anyways, rejection of the nutty far left would be very good for the long term health of your party and, more importantly, the country.
  #208  
Old 11-25-2019, 08:44 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Anyways, rejection of the nutty far left would be very good for the long term health of your party and, more importantly, the country.
To attach on to my previous post: this guy supports Donald Trump. He does so and then proceeds to talk about the "nutty far left". I have to ask - should we take someone who makes statements like that seriously when they say, "Yeah, I'd vote for the dems, IF..."

These statements are not earnest pleas for the democrats to "come back to the center".
  #209  
Old 11-25-2019, 08:44 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
What does this mean? No, seriously, what is a "moderate"? Someone who sees the Trump administration's position of "climate change is a chinese hoax", the left accurately describing climate change as an existential threat to modern civilization and thinks, "Hmm, maybe a minor carbon tax will help"? Is this somehow "moderate"?


The alternative is a president ...

The alternative is a president ...

The alternative is a president ...

The alternative is a president ...
if you'll notice, the OP was talking about voting third party as opposed to voting for Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
When I hear open borders and free everything it sounds like socialism to me. Iím not a fan. Iím also not a fan with claiming to be following the constitution yet ignoring every Ďtroublingí aspect of it when convenient to do so.

Anyways, rejection of the nutty far left would be very good for the long term health of your party and, more importantly, the country.
The only place you hear Dems being for open borders and free everything is on right-wing media, not the Democratic debate stage.

And as far as rejection of "the nutty far left," I think AOC is a joke too; but the side of politics you hew to is determined to label every Democrat as being party of the nutty far left. Hillary Clinton -- I mean, you can hardly imagine a more centrist, establishment Dem -- was painted as an extreme left winger. You've got to agree that whatever her shortcomings, she is not a left winger, correct?
  #210  
Old 11-25-2019, 08:52 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
the side of politics you hew to is determined to label every Democrat as being party of the nutty far left. Hillary Clinton -- I mean, you can hardly imagine a more centrist, establishment Dem -- was painted as an extreme left winger.
And they did the same to John Kerry in 2004, which took some doing.
  #211  
Old 11-25-2019, 08:54 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Please don’t misrepresent my point of view. I don’t use socialism as a scare word. No more than others on this forum use fascism, with absolutely no pushback, as a scare word.

When I hear open borders and free everything it sounds like socialism to me.
But that's the thing: why is (a loose immigration policy labeled by its opponents as) "open borders"= "socialism"? By association with internationalism? So any policy other than right wing nationalism = "socialism"?

(Some months back Mitch McConnell pissed off a whole damn lot of Puerto Ricans of both parties by saying statehood for PR would be a win for socialism. Just more proof that it's become a snarl word.)

Last edited by JRDelirious; 11-25-2019 at 08:55 AM.
  #212  
Old 11-25-2019, 08:55 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
To attach on to my previous post: this guy supports Donald Trump. He does so and then proceeds to talk about the "nutty far left". I have to ask - should we take someone who makes statements like that seriously when they say, "Yeah, I'd vote for the dems, IF..."

These statements are not earnest pleas for the democrats to "come back to the center".
Iíve voted for dems before. And yes Iíd do so again. But not in support of the nutty far left. They are too dangerous. Biden ainít so bad. Even if some of his stories are a bit goofy.
  #213  
Old 11-25-2019, 08:59 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
if you'll notice, the OP was talking about voting third party as opposed to voting for Trump.

The only place you hear Dems being for open borders and free everything is on right-wing media, not the Democratic debate stage.

And as far as rejection of "the nutty far left," I think AOC is a joke too; but the side of politics you hew to is determined to label every Democrat as being party of the nutty far left. Hillary Clinton -- I mean, you can hardly imagine a more centrist, establishment Dem -- was painted as an extreme left winger. You've got to agree that whatever her shortcomings, she is not a left winger, correct?
Is Hillary a left winger? By todayís standards? Probably not. Not far left by any means. Sheíd have been, aside from reshaping the judiciary, a better president than The Donald.
  #214  
Old 11-25-2019, 09:03 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Is Hillary a left winger? By todayís standards? Probably not. Not far left by any means. Sheíd have been, aside from reshaping the judiciary, a better president than The Donald.
By any standard after 1950 she is not a left winger.

And yet, how many millions of times was she called a socialist? The word has totally lost any value when applied to criticism of the Democratic party.
  #215  
Old 11-25-2019, 09:46 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Please donít misrepresent my point of view. I donít use socialism as a scare word. No more than others on this forum use fascism, with absolutely no pushback, as a scare word.

When I hear open borders and free everything it sounds like socialism to me. Iím not a fan. Iím also not a fan with claiming to be following the constitution yet ignoring every Ďtroublingí aspect of it when convenient to do so.

Anyways, rejection of the nutty far left would be very good for the long term health of your party and, more importantly, the country.
There's a little irony in your accusing me of misrepresenting what you said, and then your saying that today you're hearing about "open borders and free everything." Neither of those ideas are remotely within the mainstream of political conversation in our country, and open borders have nothing whatsoever to do with socialism. These examples are far better examples of "socialism" as a bugaboo than anything I would've been able to come up with.
  #216  
Old 11-25-2019, 09:50 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
All an acceptable candidate would have to say is something like "I support the 2nd Amendment. As President, I will veto any bill that purports to ban any type of gun, or any attempt to create a license/registration system.Ē
But thatís pretty much what Trump said while standing in front of NRA and GOA conventions.

Then the moment something happened he started talking about all sorts of restrictions and got a bump stock ban via an illegal procedure.

Iíve always said that a truly pro-gun Democrat could beat the brains out of a Republican in a national election. But what the Democratic party consider pro-gun is not what gun issue voters consider pro-gun.
  #217  
Old 11-25-2019, 11:45 AM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post



They are, much like you, by and large lifetime republicans. Occasionally, they're misrepresented as "swing voters" when they are, in fact, hardline Trump supporters
This is as far as I got in your wall of text You have no basis to call me a "lifetime republican", and I take offense at falsely being labeled a Trump supporter. I typically vote a split ticket in most elections, often including third party candidates. I have never supported Donald Trump.
  #218  
Old 11-25-2019, 11:55 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
This is as far as I got in your wall of text You have no basis to call me a "lifetime republican", and I take offense at falsely being labeled a Trump supporter. I typically vote a split ticket in most elections, often including third party candidates. I have never supported Donald Trump.
I swear, at some point I'm going to stop mistaking you for Okrahoma, and then I will stop making these embarrassing mistakes.
  #219  
Old 11-25-2019, 12:11 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,461
I find the OP funny. As horrific as Trump is, the democratic candidate has to pass a microscopic personality/politics test, otherwise he'll vote for Trump?!

That's like keeping Hitler and not voting for Winston Churchill because he smoked those stinky cigars. LOL
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #220  
Old 11-25-2019, 12:14 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
I find the OP funny. As horrific as Trump is, the democratic candidate has to pass a microscopic personality/politics test, otherwise he'll vote for Trump?!
That is quite literally the exact opposite of what the OP has clarified several times now. Including two posts right above your own.
  #221  
Old 11-25-2019, 12:51 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
But that’s pretty much what Trump said while standing in front of NRA and GOA conventions.



Then the moment something happened he started talking about all sorts of restrictions and got a bump stock ban via an illegal procedure.



I’ve always said that a truly pro-gun Democrat could beat the brains out of a Republican in a national election. But what the Democratic party consider pro-gun is not what gun issue voters consider pro-gun.

And “gun issue voters” are from all appearances no less resistant than anyone else to the seduction of hearing the words they want to hear, even when spoken by a proven liar and opportunist. (And at the same time many of them would never believe the pro-gun Democrat even if she were hooked up to a polygraph while promising it...)
  #222  
Old 11-25-2019, 01:13 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
...
When I hear open borders and free everything it sounds like socialism to me. Iím not a fan. Iím also not a fan with claiming to be following the constitution yet ignoring every Ďtroublingí aspect of it when convenient to do so.
...
No one has suggested open borders seriously. And sure, "Free" college- in various iterations- has been suggested. In some states, Community colleges are basically free. I dont see how that makes anything worse.
  #223  
Old 11-25-2019, 01:23 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
if you'll notice, the OP was talking about voting third party as opposed to voting for Trump.
...
Which means voting for trump, in effect.
  #224  
Old 11-25-2019, 01:29 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
I find the OP funny. As horrific as Trump is, the democratic candidate has to pass a microscopic personality/politics test, otherwise he'll vote for Trump?!

That's like keeping Hitler and not voting for Winston Churchill because he smoked those stinky cigars. LOL
I see this everywhere now: Meet the press especially. It's almost like the media ecosphere is designed to troll liberals.

MTP is just at sea trying to deal with this. They can't stop the bad faith and can't call it out except by passively nodding and moving on to the panel segment where a defense of sanity may be offered, in the heat of some bad faith crosstalk.

The media has defined democracy as something that is being ratcheted away with each new event in the world, where liberals must be scared of offending their neighbors but no one else needs to. The reason: It's reality TV at it's best.
  #225  
Old 11-25-2019, 01:32 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Which means voting for trump, in effect.
That's ridiculous. An actual Trump supporter is likely to claim voting third party is, in effect, voting for the Dem nominee, but the fact of the matter is that voting third party takes nothing away from either Dems or Reps. If neither party nominates an acceptable candidate, and I could not vote third party or write in someone I like, I'd just stay home.

Last edited by Oakminster; 11-25-2019 at 01:35 PM.
  #226  
Old 11-25-2019, 01:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
That's ridiculous. An actual Trump supporter is likely to claim voting third party is, in effect, voting for the Dem nominee, but the fact of the matter is that voting third party takes nothing away from either Dems or Reps. If neither party nominates an acceptable candidate, and I could not vote third party or write in someone I like, I'd just stay home.
No, I disagree, since the GOP hopes and prays for poor voter turnout.
  #227  
Old 11-25-2019, 01:56 PM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
That's ridiculous. An actual Trump supporter is likely to claim voting third party is, in effect, voting for the Dem nominee, but the fact of the matter is that voting third party takes nothing away from either Dems or Reps. If neither party nominates an acceptable candidate, and I could not vote third party or write in someone I like, I'd just stay home.
Okay, put it another way. You are refusing to do something good and necessary unless someone else jumps through hoops, and your conception of civic engagement is hopelessly naive. The republican party needs to go. If you think getting a candidate who fits your wishlist is more important than that...

... Why? Why should we have to change to appeal to you so that you'll act against the regime taking immigration advice from a neo-nazi? Everything I said earlier about the alternative? That's still totally true even if you're not a republican! I strongly dislike Joe Biden and think that he shouldnt be the president in any sane system, but if my options are Biden, Trump, or not voting (or voting third party, but I repeat myself), the only moral or rational option is Biden.

Or maybe you think the status quo is fine? If so, yikes.
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon
  #228  
Old 11-25-2019, 02:12 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And sure, "Free" college- in various iterations- has been suggested. In some states, Community colleges are basically free. I dont see how that makes anything worse.
I wish it didn't need pointing out, but there's also an enormous difference between "free everything" and "publicly fund some aspect of our educational system." The former is a bananas proposal. The latter is the same sort of proposal that was so controversial during the Gilded Age.
  #229  
Old 11-25-2019, 02:16 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
That's ridiculous. An actual Trump supporter is likely to claim voting third party is, in effect, voting for the Dem nominee, but the fact of the matter is that voting third party takes nothing away from either Dems or Reps. If neither party nominates an acceptable candidate, and I could not vote third party or write in someone I like, I'd just stay home.
Hands on the trolley, man. Hands on the trolley.

Out of 1000 voters, there are 475 who like the flaming dumpster fire, and 525 who loathe him.

Problem is, out of those 525, there are 100 who also hate the condescending server-wiper.

If all 100 of those server-wiper-haters make a trolley decision, they'll see it's much worse to have a dumpster fire than to have a server wiper, and we'll get the server-wiper in office, 525-475.

If all 100 of those server-wiper-haters ignore their trolley decision, they'll instead refuse to vote for a candidate they hate, and instead they'll vote third party, and we'll get the dumpster fire in office, 475-425.

The analysis of who's helped by a third party vote depends on who the voter thinks is worse of the two candidates with a chance. Third-party voters who would've voted for Trump over Clinton helped Clinton when they voted third-party, and the reverse is true.

A third party vote helps your least-liked candidate exactly and mathematically 1/2 as much as a vote for that hated candidate would.
  #230  
Old 11-25-2019, 02:16 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, I disagree, since the GOP hopes and prays for poor voter turnout.
Quite true. There is a structural advantage for republicans if they can manage to get low turnout.
  #231  
Old 11-25-2019, 02:21 PM
Sterling Archer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
That's ridiculous. An actual Trump supporter is likely to claim voting third party is, in effect, voting for the Dem nominee, but the fact of the matter is that voting third party takes nothing away from either Dems or Reps. If neither party nominates an acceptable candidate, and I could not vote third party or write in someone I like, I'd just stay home.


Voting “other” is mathematically the same as not voting. It’s effectively the same as half a vote for Trump (and half for the Dem candidate) since you’re giving up the opportunity to vote against either candidate by choosing an option that will not win. If you really dislike Trump, and dislike the Dem candidate slightly less, the only real option is to vote Dem if you want your vote to mean anything.
  #232  
Old 11-25-2019, 02:36 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Which means voting for trump, in effect.
Which is no more true an assertion than a Trump supporter saying that voting for a third party means voting for Sanders/Warren/AOC/Osama bin Laden, "in effect."

Now, I completely discourage people from voting third party because it's a useless exercise, but the argument that non-voters favor one side and not the other is just incorrect. They are nothing but a missed opportunity for either side.
  #233  
Old 11-25-2019, 02:50 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Which is no more true an assertion than a Trump supporter saying that voting for a third party means voting for Sanders/Warren/AOC/Osama bin Laden, "in effect."

Now, I completely discourage people from voting third party because it's a useless exercise, but the argument that non-voters favor one side and not the other is just incorrect. They are nothing but a missed opportunity for either side.
Can you explain why Rs want low turnout elections?

The ones you are talking about, "people on the fence", may be a demo group that advantages dems and disadvantages Rs. Being able to know that is what facebook et al are all about. And they know a lot.

Very specifically Jill Stein was the choice of a lot of on the fencers but also the choice of the russia propaganda machine.

Last edited by drad dog; 11-25-2019 at 02:53 PM.
  #234  
Old 11-25-2019, 02:54 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
... Why? Why should we have to change to appeal to you so that you'll act against the regime taking immigration advice from a neo-nazi? Everything I said earlier about the alternative? That's still totally true even if you're not a republican! I strongly dislike Joe Biden and think that he shouldnt be the president in any sane system, but if my options are Biden, Trump, or not voting (or voting third party, but I repeat myself), the only moral or rational option is Biden.
Why must you appeal to me? Pretty sure I've explained that several times now, but for the umpteenth time, you must appeal to me if you want my vote. It's that simple.

I have no duty to endorse or support an agenda I find unacceptable. Banning "assault weapons" and/or requiring gun registration are not acceptable to me. Those things are never going to be acceptable to me.

Trump is equally unacceptable to me, for other reasons. There is no circumstance in which I'd vote for him.

However, and I cannot emphasize this enough--the left is not entitled to my vote regardless of what they claim about the incumbent. If you want my vote, earn it. Or forfeit it. Your call.
  #235  
Old 11-25-2019, 03:04 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Which is no more true an assertion than a Trump supporter saying that voting for a third party means voting for Sanders/Warren/AOC/Osama bin Laden, "in effect."
The "compared to" is the key missing piece.

When you vote third party, compared to how you'd vote if you had to choose between the only candidates who stand a chance, if in the latter situation you would've voted for Clinton, then your third-party vote is equivalent to half a vote for Trump.

If in the latter situation you would've voted for Trump, then your third-party vote is equivalent to half a vote for Clinton.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Why must you appeal to me? Pretty sure I've explained that several times now, but for the umpteenth time, you must appeal to me if you want my vote. It's that simple.

I have no duty to endorse or support an agenda I find unacceptable. Banning "assault weapons" and/or requiring gun registration are not acceptable to me. Those things are never going to be acceptable to me.

Trump is equally unacceptable to me, for other reasons. There is no circumstance in which I'd vote for him.

However, and I cannot emphasize this enough--the left is not entitled to my vote regardless of what they claim about the incumbent. If you want my vote, earn it. Or forfeit it. Your call.
My point is that your entire model is jacked. Nobody "earns" a vote. Voting isn't about paying fair wages for service rendered. Nobody is "entitled" to your vote. Voting isn't about giving something away.

Voting is an action you take in order to push the world toward a better state.

When I clean the cat box, I end up with a snootful of catshit stank. That litterbox isn't entitled to being cleaned. It didn't earn my labor. I do it, not for the sake of the catbox, but for my sake, and for the sake of my family. I want a better home.

I encourage you, and everyone, to regard voting the same way. Don't expect anyone to earn your vote; don't imagine anyone feels entitled to it. Make your decision the one that makes the world better, even if doing so fucking stinks.
  #236  
Old 11-25-2019, 03:08 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Why must you appeal to me? Pretty sure I've explained that several times now, but for the umpteenth time, you must appeal to me if you want my vote. It's that simple.

I have no duty to endorse or support an agenda I find unacceptable. Banning "assault weapons" and/or requiring gun registration are not acceptable to me. Those things are never going to be acceptable to me.

Trump is equally unacceptable to me, for other reasons. There is no circumstance in which I'd vote for him.

However, and I cannot emphasize this enough--the left is not entitled to my vote regardless of what they claim about the incumbent. If you want my vote, earn it. Or forfeit it. Your call.
Things can't be "equally unacceptable." What that means is that you have reflective work to do, internally, things to parse and decide. But here you are asking other people to do it for you. "Equally unacceptable" is just a license for you to keep trying to have someone else make your decisions for you. Your position here, and your tone, are very "entitled." "Earn my vote, and don't touch my guns"

ETA: Entitled has come up twice now. Good.

Last edited by drad dog; 11-25-2019 at 03:09 PM.
  #237  
Old 11-25-2019, 03:08 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Can you explain why Rs want low turnout elections?

The ones you are talking about, "people on the fence", may be a demo group that advantages dems and disadvantages Rs.
Sure, Republican voters vote more consistently. But from that axiom, one can't then conclude that one voter's non-vote therefore benefits the Republicans.

"If A, then B; B, therefore A" remains a logical fallacy.
  #238  
Old 11-25-2019, 03:10 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
When you vote third party, compared to how you'd vote if you had to choose between the only candidates who stand a chance, if in the latter situation you would've voted for Clinton, then your third-party vote is equivalent to half a vote for Trump.

If in the latter situation you would've voted for Trump, then your third-party vote is equivalent to half a vote for Clinton.
I'm not familiar with all these new voting concepts -- like ranked choice voting, single transferrable vote, Monte Carlo random vote distributor systems, Huawei Many Great Reliable Perfect Voting Machine System Concern, and so on -- but I'm pretty sure in this country half votes don't count for shit.
  #239  
Old 11-25-2019, 03:18 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post

I encourage you, and everyone, to regard voting the same way. Don't expect anyone to earn your vote; don't imagine anyone feels entitled to it. Make your decision the one that makes the world better, even if doing so fucking stinks.
You, and pretty much all of the other lefties in this thread, damn sure act like you're entitled to my vote. I do not see voting the way you do, and I'm probably not going to see it that way.
  #240  
Old 11-25-2019, 03:21 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Sure, Republican voters vote more consistently. But from that axiom, one can't then conclude that one voter's non-vote therefore benefits the Republicans.

"If A, then B; B, therefore A" remains a logical fallacy.
If "on the fencers" are an advantage to dems then they will already have been the subject of propaganda to refrain from voting from the right. So the wheel is still in spin until you cast the vote. If you vote 3rd then that is perfectly in keeping with the plans of those you are voting to try and defeat. To exit from this system of propaganda you need to vote proactively, against the enemy. The "3 candidates choice" problem is just a screen for fascism.
  #241  
Old 11-25-2019, 03:39 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
But you don't know as a starting point why individual people aren't voting for the Democratic in a particular election.

They could be working class people who just aren't allowed time off of work because their boss is a giant right wing, vote suppressing asshole -- but these voters would for sure vote for lefties to restore union power if they didn't have so many mouths to feed in their home. (In other words, what D's insist is the model of every non-voter in the country.)

Or, they could be crazies who always vote for the Lizard People in every election that they can, unless it is too cold and wet to head to the polls.

Oak is clearly neither one.... but he's closer to the second than the first. That doesn't equal 5/16ths of a vote for Trump or whatever.

The first case is clearly a -1 for Clinton (or whomever), the second case means zero for Clinton and Trump no matter what.

Last edited by Ravenman; 11-25-2019 at 03:40 PM.
  #242  
Old 11-25-2019, 04:21 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'm not familiar with all these new voting concepts -- like ranked choice voting, single transferrable vote, Monte Carlo random vote distributor systems, Huawei Many Great Reliable Perfect Voting Machine System Concern, and so on -- but I'm pretty sure in this country half votes don't count for shit.
THey count for half a shit. See my example above, with 1,000 voters. In an election decided by a single vote, one switched vote would reverse the outcome. Two third-party votes could reverse it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
You, and pretty much all of the other lefties in this thread, damn sure act like you're entitled to my vote. I do not see voting the way you do, and I'm probably not going to see it that way.
I certainly don't think I'm entitled to your vote, I don't even think that concept is coherent.

I know you don't see voting the way I do. I've laid out a variety of reasons why I believe it's a better approach to voting, and I'm not clear on WHY you disagree. What's the advantage to your model, wherein people "earn" votes but are not "entitled" to votes, over my model, where your vote-casting is an attempt to make the world better?

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 11-25-2019 at 04:24 PM.
  #243  
Old 11-25-2019, 04:31 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
THey count for half a shit. See my example above, with 1,000 voters.
Your contrived scenario doesn't actually show anything. I could make up a scenario in which 65,000,000 Marxists parachute into all 50 states and become citizens, thereby handing AOC the presidency. Doesn't mean I've proven anything.

The bottom lines remains: low turnout elections tend to favor Republicans. It would be better, in my opinion, if voters on the fence would vote Democratic. But if an individual voter who is disengaged fails to vote or vote for a third party, there's no way to know whether that vote actually helps Trump, because there's no reliable way to know what that voter would have done if they had actually made some use of their vote.
  #244  
Old 11-25-2019, 04:37 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Your contrived scenario doesn't actually show anything. I could make up a scenario in which 65,000,000 Marxists parachute into all 50 states and become citizens, thereby handing AOC the presidency. Doesn't mean I've proven anything.
What? It was an example, meant to illustrate how the math works. How third party votes affect elections isn't really a debatable point: the math is the math. If you think there's a mathematical principle demonstrated by your example, please elaborate, but otherwise your analogy isn't analogous to my analogy .

Quote:
The bottom lines remains: low turnout elections tend to favor Republicans. It would be better, in my opinion, if voters on the fence would vote Democratic. But if an individual voter who is disengaged fails to vote or vote for a third party, there's no way to know whether that vote actually helps Trump, because there's no reliable way to know what that voter would have done if they had actually made some use of their vote.
Absolutely, which is why I keep saying that you need to include a comparison. With the correct comparison (to which candidate the person would've voted for had they stuck to voting for a possibly-winning candidate), you can figure out who was helped and who was harmed by their decision instead to go third-party.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 11-25-2019 at 04:39 PM.
  #245  
Old 11-25-2019, 05:10 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post

Absolutely, which is why I keep saying that you need to include a comparison. With the correct comparison (to which candidate the person would've voted for had they stuck to voting for a possibly-winning candidate), you can figure out who was helped and who was harmed by their decision instead to go third-party.
I would not have voted for Trump or Hillary. I will not vote for Trump or a Dem nominee that wants to ban guns or require registration. If someone waves a magic wand to eliminate a third party/write in option, I'll stay home.
  #246  
Old 11-25-2019, 05:28 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
But you don't know as a starting point why individual people aren't voting for the Democratic in a particular election.

They could be working class people who just aren't allowed time off of work because their boss is a giant right wing, vote suppressing asshole -- but these voters would for sure vote for lefties to restore union power if they didn't have so many mouths to feed in their home. (In other words, what D's insist is the model of every non-voter in the country.)

Or, they could be crazies who always vote for the Lizard People in every election that they can, unless it is too cold and wet to head to the polls.

Oak is clearly neither one.... but he's closer to the second than the first. That doesn't equal 5/16ths of a vote for Trump or whatever.

The first case is clearly a -1 for Clinton (or whomever), the second case means zero for Clinton and Trump no matter what.
If they determine that an on the fencer is only a 30% chance to go their way then by not voting you are doing their bidding. Who we are is irrelevant to the algorithms. If you're you, they don't want you to vote, or if you do, they want 3rd party. The way they know who you are is by facebook et al, and not things you might assert about yourself as an individual. They don't care if you are anything else.
  #247  
Old 11-25-2019, 05:46 PM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
THey count for half a shit. See my example above, with 1,000 voters. In an election decided by a single vote, one switched vote would reverse the outcome. Two third-party votes could reverse it.

I certainly don't think I'm entitled to your vote, I don't even think that concept is coherent.

I know you don't see voting the way I do. I've laid out a variety of reasons why I believe it's a better approach to voting, and I'm not clear on WHY you disagree. What's the advantage to your model, wherein people "earn" votes but are not "entitled" to votes, over my model, where your vote-casting is an attempt to make the world better?
You seem to believe that voting for the least objectionable electable candidate makes the world better instead of just worse slower. Some of us believe that its better to vote for someone who would make the world better not just bad slower even if that person may have a much harder time getting elected.

I don't understand how you could not have a candidate earn your vote. Maybe you don't assign points or something but you must use some mental rubric to determine who is making the world bad at a slower pace even if its a dumb as is a person a Dem then yes.
  #248  
Old 11-25-2019, 05:52 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
However, and I cannot emphasize this enough--the left is not entitled to my vote regardless of what they claim about the incumbent. If you want my vote, earn it. Or forfeit it. Your call.
There is a genre of online centrism that insists the left must cater to their desires and then avoids laying out the common ground in favor of mocking leftists for not catering to certain of their desires. This seems to be one of those cases.

Personally I am skeptical about how much moderation we're going to see from someone who is such a self-described absolutist on anything, but sometimes I'm wrong. Where's the post number where you described Democrat positions that you can live with, apart from total capitulation on guns?
  #249  
Old 11-25-2019, 05:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
You, and pretty much all of the other lefties in this thread, damn sure act like you're entitled to my vote. I do not see voting the way you do, and I'm probably not going to see it that way.
Not entitled. The question is- do you want trump re-elected or not?
  #250  
Old 11-25-2019, 05:59 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Where's the post number where you described Democrat positions that you can live with, apart from total capitulation on guns?
See post #101. Those positions aren't necessarily Dem only, but they are reasonably moderate.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017