Support NeoGAF

[TheOfficeMut]

If you want to shame people into actually voting, I'll be right there with you. If you want to shame people into voting for the candidate that best serves your interest, then I think you're being pretty scummy.

We aren't trying to shame anyone into voting for our interests. We're shaming people who claim to be progressive yet threaten to vote for completely regressive ideals in the GOP. If someone I know is voting and is republican, then that's fine, that's his or her stance. But if that person were to also abstain because he or she was disappointed with the republican establishment, therefore potentially conceding to the democrats, then I'd also have a problem because they are actively making it worse by votig against their own interests or not voting at all.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

The bolded is what needs to be remembered. The number of people that cast a frivolous protest vote are too small to matter. The people that are actually doing what the system was created for and voting for a candidate that best represents their positions should not have to tolerate these shitty attacks because someone else's candidate of choice may not have enough of the populations ear to win the election.

If someone chooses not to vote or to vote for Trump out of spite, their opinions don't bear entertaining at all.

 

[Melkezadek]

I won't, if I were interested in debating with you I'd tell you all about how well they may do under President Sanders or Stein.

I'm fully aware of how well they will do with Sanders. I'm voting for him.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Come on, you can't really believe this. You really believe she will only 100% act for her donors only and not a single other group? Bollocks.

I will repost.

www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969g

Yeah, i think when it comes to things people really need in this country, she is never going to legitimately push for what the people need over what her backers think will benefit them more.

So far, she has tried to toe the line between "i'm gonna be tough on wall street!" and "being tough on wall street is too radical and unrealistic!" Its transparent that she was going in with low expectations to not have to have people expect her to do anything.

The truth of the matter is, Lloyd Blankfein, and all the other interests that need regulating have never attacked her in this campaign like they have Sanders, and we all know the reason.

Even the entities like Planned Parenthood that endorsed her only voted through a dozen board of directors instead of the actual members, and more than half of them were lobbyists for other powerful corporate interests that overlap with other Clinton support bases.

When we talk about the power structure in Washington, it is a web of varying institutions, and what the citizen wants is largely not apart of that.

 

[Angelus Errare]

If someone chooses not to vote or to vote for Trump out of spite, their opinions don't bear entertaining at all.

Preach.

 

[Polari]

and the list goes on.

This. I can understand people thinking she's the best of a bad bunch, but actively supporting her?

How can people accept a candidate in the pocket of the same banks that are directly responsible for the decimation of the working classes over the last thirty years, and particularly the last eight? Do you really think she's going to act in your best interests? Or in the interests of the friends that have made her and her husband incredibly wealthy?

 

[Malvolio]

If someone chooses not to vote or to vote for Trump out of spite, their opinions don't bear entertaining at all.

Which is exactly my point. Those people are the fringe and don't need to be addressed. Calling out a third party vote as just as misguided is shitty and it's been done a few times in this thread.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

We could (should?) have a huge discussion on pharma patents. I genuinely think it's one of the most important topics of our time (see: the Brazil example with AIDS medication, one of the best examples of the clear and positive examples of breaking patents with incredible positive effects), but it is being used as an unfortunate bullet point in all-encompassing free-trade rejection. I disagree that the way the agreements are crafted today are mainly about cementing corporate powers. There is that aspect of it that we need to address, but the net impact has been largely and overwhelmingly positive.

By the way, you made the best of points by bringing up Pharma patents. You hit me right on the softest of spots without knowing it

The pharmaceutical industry is a pet interest of mine for purely personal reasons. However I think in many ways, the way that industry and also the health insurance industry's power over preventing regulation and reform of health care in this country is actually the best example of how corporate influence over both parties has dramatically harmed the American people. And since both parties are quite beholden to these interests, actual reform that would improve the state of health care in America is largely impossible. The way the drug companies have continuously expanded the duration of patent protection to delay introduction of generics while also writing into law provisions which explicitly state that the government cannot negotiate lower drug prices is pretty disgusting but they have gotten away with these things for a long time now.

However with regard to the trade agreements, I don't agree that the impact has been overwhelmingly positive. The concentration of wealth in a few super powerful individuals and the loss of wealth from everyone else has accelerated after 2000 although it started in the Reagan era. In fact the growth of income inequality accelerated while Obama was President. The general trend of globalization has accelerated this process even though in theory it should be the opposite.

 

[BeatnikGunsoo]

I'm glad only the crazy people seem to be on this site, reddit, and one of my friends from facebook I was getting worried for a second

This thread has shown me that we liberals can just be as crazy, stupid, and insane as some far right conservatives

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Which is exactly my point. Those people are the fringe and don't need to be addressed. Calling out a third party vote as just as misguided is shitty and it's been done a few times in this thread.

If you want to be a mod that's cool, but some of these people are pretty aggressively ignorant.

 

[minor effort]

The bolded is what needs to be remembered. The number of people that cast a frivolous protest vote are too small to matter. The people that are actually doing what the system was created for and voting for a candidate that best represents their positions should not have to tolerate these shitty attacks because someone else's candidate of choice may not have enough of the populations ear to win the election.

That's a fair point. If you vote Green because you're a true supporter of their candidate and platform, that's at least an honest vote.

But people still may be harsh when cautioning of the stakes if a third-party candidate becomes large enough to play a spoiler role but not large enough to possibly win an election.

(I very nearly voted Nader in 2000 myself)

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

As a queer person, I'm getting really tired of Democrats trying to co-opt the LGBTQ+ movement and exploiting our struggle to shame people who don't vote for them.

This. And as a black gay I'm tired of my people saying I HAVE to vote for this shrew when the party only pays attention to us during the election cycle. I normally vote democrat, but this is the first time I won't be voting democrat for president and democrat for everything else. I cannot in good conscience vote for a Clinton again.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Dignity for holding onto ideological purity in place for pragmatic progress. Congrats on reaching tea party status.

I don't understand where this faulty argument keeps coming from from Hillary supporters. Its not about being 'ideologically pure'. Even though there are hardly any liberals left in the parties anyway.

I thought at one point that there were significant differences that separated the two parties to actually morally support them over the other one, but your basically saying protesting warhawks who constantly make bad decisions overseas, wanting a government that pushes for legislation for the citizen, and castigating corrupt candidates in general as being an 'idealoge'

So then, what isn't an idealogue?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Lmao @ Fenderputty being a "Hillary supporter"

 

[Dash_Riprock]

This. And as a black gay I'm tired of my people saying I HAVE to vote for this shrew when the party only pays attention to us during the election cycle. I normally vote democrat, but this is the first time I won't be voting democrat for president and democrat for everything else. I cannot in good conscience vote for a Clinton again.

Its hard to take you seriously when you used such juvenile insults like "shrew."

 

[Nipo]

Just wanted to say thanks to those who recommend Jill Stein. I looked into her positions and she seems awesome as a Hilary alternative in the general.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This. And as a black gay I'm tired of my people saying I HAVE to vote for this shrew when the party only pays attention to us during the election cycle. I normally vote democrat, but this is the first time I won't be voting democrat for president and democrat for everything else. I cannot in good conscience vote for a Clinton again.

There's that sexism creeping in.

 

[Fenderputty]

I don't understand where this faulty argument keeps coming from from Hillary supporters. Its not about being 'ideologically pure'.

Because you said you gain nothing except the knowledge that you didn't sacrifice your moral compass to vote for the lesser of two evils. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

 

[hawk2025]

I don't understand where this faulty argument keeps coming from from Hillary supporters. Its not about being 'ideologically pure'. Even though there are hardly any liberals left in the parties anyway.

I thought at one point that there were significant differences that separated the two parties to actually morally support them over the other one, but your basically saying protesting warhawks who constantly make bad decisions overseas, wanting a government that pushes for legislation for the citizen, and castigating corrupt candidates in general as being an 'idealoge'

So then, what isn't an idealogue?

You get called out for No True Scotsman bullshit, and you consistently double down.

It's not even surprising at this point.

You don't even entertain the possibility that your ridiculous accusations may not be true.

 

[Not]

There's that sexism creeping in.

Stick around for long enough in a conversation and it always finds a way to squeak out.

Really embarrassing. Risks undercutting someone's entire argument.

 

[stufte]

There's that sexism creeping in.

I'm not sure anyone even knows what sexism means anymore.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

There's that sexism creeping in.

Is it still sexism if i'd vote the shit out of a Elizabeth Warren ticket?

 

[Russ T]

I'm not sure anyone even knows what sexism means anymore.

"shrew" is a pretty gendered insult. IMO that falls under the sexism umbrella. The type that's subtle and you don't really realize it at the time you're saying it, but once someone points it out, you're like, "well, shit". At least that's what happens to me sometimes haha.

Like it may not be an intentional attack on her gender, but nobody uses the word "shrew" to attack a dude.

 

[Fenderputty]

I'm not sure anyone even knows what sexism means anymore.

Ancient gendered insults aren't sexist?

Is it still sexism if i'd vote the shit out of a Elizabeth Warren ticket?

Yes? Does having a black friend mean someone isn't capable of racism?

 

[Inuhanyou]

Lmao @ Fenderputty being a "Hillary supporter"

I don't care what he is, the argument makes no sense.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

Yes? Does having a black friend mean someone isn't capable of racism?

Oh, I see. Thanks.

 

[Hige]

This. I can understand people thinking she's the best of a bad bunch, but actively supporting her?

How can people accept a candidate in the pocket of the same banks that are directly responsible for the decimation of the working classes over the last thirty years, and particularly the last eight? Do you really think she's going to act in your best interests? Or in the interests of the friends that have made her and her husband incredibly wealthy?

You'll just receive a bunch of "But Bernie" answers. He won't win the nomination yet her supporters can't keep his name out of their mouths. When the only argument for your candidate is that they're the lesser of two evils, it's not a strong argument.

I have no interest in supporting Hillary's involvement in the prison-industrial complex, the financial industry, her support for the death penalty, her war hawkhishness, or her tepid support for the LGBT community, among other things. Don't bother replying to me about how Obama or Bernie didn't support SSM, I'm familiar with the timeline. Luckily she doesn't need my vote to win my state, so I can vote for someone else instead.

 

[Not]

I'm not sure anyone even knows what sexism means anymore.

Actions and statements that, whether you intended to or not, imply that you believe one sex, (in practice, predominantly male) to be superior to the other.

I would imagine most people don't intend to be sexist, but growing up as a dude in a patriarchy does shit to you.

 

[Tesseract]

don't vote if you want to, it's the only power you have in this process

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That's a fair point. If you vote Green because you're a true supporter of their candidate and platform, that's at least an honest vote.

But people still may be harsh when cautioning of the stakes if a third-party candidate becomes large enough to play a spoiler role but not large enough to possibly win an election.

(I very nearly voted Nader in 2000 myself)

It's funny you mention this, in 2000 I had a friend who had moved to Texas for college. So in 2000 I was one of those people who "Nader traded", I voted for Nader in my home state at the time (California) where everyone knew Al Gore would carry it, and he voted for Gore in Texas. Unfortunately W had no problems carrying his home state so nothing useful happened in the end.

 

[stufte]

Actions and statements that, whether you intended to or not, imply that you believe one sex, (in practice, predominantly male) to be superior to the other.

I would imagine most people don't intend to be sexist, but growing up as a dude in a patriarchy does shit to you.

Shew doesn't speak to a superiority of the male gender or a inferiority of the female gender. It's directed at an individual, not women in general. Just like "dudebro" or "neckbeard" or any other negative descriptor that is gendered. It's at worst a gendered insult. People need to start using words like sexism more appropriately, else it loses the importance of it's meaning.

 

[Fenderputty]

Shew doesn't speak to a superiority of the male gender or a inferiority of the female gender. It's directed at an individual, not women in general. Just like "dudebro" or "neckbeard" or any other negative descriptor that is gendered. It's at worst a gendered insult. People need to start using words like sexism more appropriately, else it loses the importance of it's meaning.

"Bitch" doesn't speak to the superiority of the male gender either. You gonna use this shitty train of logic to argue that "Bitch" isn't a sexist term as well?

 

[HylianTom]

There's that sexism creeping in.

If they could get away with it, you'd see "bitch" thrown about so much that these folks' postings would resemble the comments over at FreeRepublic or Breitbart.. even more.

---

And still no answer on that court question.

How does turning-over SCOTUS to conservatives for 25+ years advance Bernie's long-term vision?

Any moment now would be lovely. And no - "Hillary is ____" doesn't answer the question.

It's a very simple question. Quit avoiding it.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Because you said you gain nothing except the knowledge that you didn't sacrifice your moral compass to vote for the lesser of two evils. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

I also said, that i'd gain nothing from throwing that moral compass away by voting for someone i fundamentally don't support. I've done that plenty, and it largely didn't mean anything.

You keep mentioning ideological purity, but not supporting fundamentally corrupt candidates is not an ideological boundary, its a common sense boundary that i think you and others have essentially fled the coop on if i'm being perfectly honest with you

 

[Russ T]

People need to start using words like sexism more appropriately, else it loses the importance of it's meaning.

Gendered insults are sexism.

 

[minor effort]

It's funny you mention this, in 2000 I had a friend who had moved to Texas for college. So in 2000 I was one of those people who "Nader traded", I voted for Nader in my home state at the time (California) where everyone knew Al Gore would carry it, and he voted for Gore in Texas. Unfortunately W had no problems carrying his home state so nothing useful happened in the end.

I was a California voter in 2000 as well. It was clear it was a safe state for Al Gore, but the national map still had me shook in the final couple weeks, so I nonetheless defaulted to my "no voter is an island" stand thinking of the possibility of a George W. Bush presidency. I voted for Al Gore in a safe state nonetheless.

I've voted for local and state Greens a number of times since, but I haven't gone back to voting third-party nationally again.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

As a queer person, I'm getting really tired of Democrats trying to co-opt the LGBTQ+ movement and exploiting our struggle to shame people who don't vote for them.

You don't have to be a Democrat to see Republican stances as the abhorrent shit they are, it's not Dems that fault America only has 2 parties.

 

[Glorified G]

Oh, I see. Thanks.

Elizabeth Warren, one of the "good ones".

 

[Cybit]

If they could get away with it, you'd see "bitch" thrown about so much that these folks' postings would resemble the comments over at FreeRepublic or Breitbart.. even more.

---

And still no answer on that court question.

How does turning-over SCOTUS to conservatives for 25+ years advance Bernie's long-term vision?

Any moment now would be lovely. And no - "Hillary is ____" doesn't answer the question.

In a perfect world?

Dems would start voting in mid-terms, and SCOTUS wouldn't be stuck doing Congress' job. SCOTUS' current outsized influence is a symptom of political laziness and discord - but instead of actually fixing the problem (by voting in mid-terms and presidential elections), we vote in only presidential elections and empower SCOTUS more and more. Which will then eventually come back to bite us all in the ass when (inevitably) a GOP president takes office with multiple SCOTUS nominees to choose. The more the pendulum keeps swinging towards us, the harder it will swing back in one go.

(Yeah, let me live in fantasy-land for a bit damnit)

Gendered insults are sexism.

So, uh, that would make Bernie-Bro and NeckBeard sexist.

 

[Russ T]

If they could get away with it, you'd see "bitch" thrown about so much that these folks' postings would resemble the comments over at FreeRepublic or Breitbart.. even more.

Literally the exact same thing could be said if Sanders and Clinton were both the opposite gender.

Sexists exist everywhere. Stop buying into the propaganda that all Sanders supports are inherently sexist, thanks. It's fucked up.

So, uh, that would make Bernie-Bro and NeckBeard sexist.

They kinda are, yeah, but they're infinitely less problematic, because dudes don't have to fight their whole lives against a system built to minimize their worth in multiple ways.

 

[TwoDurans]

I'm still amazed that Sanders supporters would rather not vote than vote for Hilary. You don't have to like her, but please understand that she's the closest we'll get to Bernie's goals in 2016.

Letting the GOP win the White House because you're so butthurt over your candidate will set Bernie's agenda back indefinitely.

 

[watershed]

Shew doesn't speak to a superiority of the male gender or a inferiority of the female gender. It's directed at an individual, not women in general. Just like "dudebro" or "neckbeard" or any other negative descriptor that is gendered. It's at worst a gendered insult. People need to start using words like sexism more appropriately, else it loses the importance of it's meaning.

Gendered insults are sexist. Racial insults are racist. Pretty simple in that way. Sexism is everywhere, including in this very thread. That's kind of why sexism matters, partly because it's degrading and pervasive.

 

[samn]

I'm still amazed that Sanders supporters would rather not vote than vote for Hilary. You don't have to like her, but please understand that she's the closest we'll get to Bernie's goals in 2016.

Letting the GOP win the White House because you're so butthurt over your candidate will set Bernie's agenda back indefinitely.

I'm counting on Sanders losing this primary

Trump winning the general

then when 2020 rolls around everyone will be begging for Bernie and Clinton will be too embarrassed to show her face

 

[Fenderputty]

I also said, that i'd gain nothing from throwing that moral compass away by voting for someone i fundamentally don't support. I've done that plenty, and it largely didn't mean anything.

If you threw away your vote in the past it means you probably helped get RBG, Sotomayer, Kagan and Breyer spots on the SCOTUS. If you're going to continue to say they've done nothing for you (even though they may have done nothing direct for you but just liberalism in general), then I'm going to call out all your liberal ideals and moral compass rhetoric as bullshit.

You keep boiling the all the support of Clinton down to this simplistic view. We're not true liberals because we support the necon in dems clothing. It's fucking annoying. Especially when your actions themselves could do more to hurt liberalism then voting for the lesser of two evil's ever could.

So, uh, that would make Bernie-Bro and NeckBeard sexist.

I know you know the difference between punching up and punching down.

 

[TwoDurans]

I'm counting on Sanders losing this primary

Drumpf winning the general

then when 2020 rolls around everyone will be begging for Bernie and Clinton will be too embarrassed to show her face

So you'd rather hurt the country over the next four years, undo God knows how much progress Obama did, get into who knows how many global conflicts, and damage the country's reputation on a global stage... all so Bernie can get another shot in 2020?

 

[minor effort]

I'm counting on Sanders losing this primary

Trump winning the general

then when 2020 rolls around everyone will be begging for Bernie and Clinton will be too embarrassed to show her face

I refer you to HylianTom's post for the outlook of progressive agendas in 2020 should President Trump get to stack a couple SCOTUS vacancies.

Besides, it won't be Bernie in 2020. He'll be approaching 80 by then.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I'm counting on Sanders losing this primary

Drumpf winning the general

then when 2020 rolls around everyone will be begging for Bernie and Clinton will be too embarrassed to show her face

so basically, something like the thousandth post in favor of accelerationism in this election cycle. it's like a fucking hydra

 

[Polari]

I'm still amazed that Sanders supporters would rather not vote than vote for Hilary. You don't have to like her, but please understand that she's the closest we'll get to Bernie's goals in 2016.

Letting the GOP win the White House because you're so butthurt over your candidate will set Bernie's agenda back indefinitely.

That's not it at all though. I can totally see people not wanting to vote for someone who they don't support, and don't think represents them.

Plus, it's probably time the Democrats got punished. They've been cosying up to special interests for far too long. Maybe this is what needs to happen before they start listening.

 

[HylianTom]

In a perfect world?

Dems would start voting in mid-terms, and SCOTUS wouldn't be stuck doing Congress' job. SCOTUS' current outsized influence is a symptom of political laziness and discord - but instead of actually fixing the problem (by voting in mid-terms and presidential elections), we vote in only presidential elections and empower SCOTUS more and more. Which will then eventually come back to bite us all in the ass when (inevitably) a GOP president takes office with multiple SCOTUS nominees to choose. The more the pendulum keeps swinging towards us, the harder it will swing back in one go.

(Yeah, let me live in fantasy-land for a bit damnit)

I know.

My big issue with the courts is this: even if we progressives voted in every election, it wouldn't change the pattern where everything, at every level of government, gets challenged in court as soon as it is enacted. It's no longer good enough to capture a legislature and an executive branch - we also have to make sure that the judiciary isn't lurking above, waiting to basically exercise a veto over our agenda.

Making the stakes even higher is the lifetime appointment aspect of the branch. It's not very often that we get a chance to tilt it in our direction, and losses reverberate not for a presidential term or two, but for decades.

It's sad and enraging, but it's part of the flawed system that we have to navigate.

Sexists exist everywhere. Stop buying into the propaganda that all Sanders supports are inherently sexist, thanks. It's fucked up.

If you could quote where I said "all Sander supporters," that'd be lovely.

I refer you to HylianTom's post for the outlook of progressive agendas in 2020 should President Trump get to stack a couple SCOTUS vacancies.

They're going to continuing ducking and pretending to not see my posts on the matter. Hell, we just saw a response to one of my posts where one aspect was plucked out while the court portion was completely ignored. They have NO answer on this. It's pitiful, and it's on display for all to see here.

 

[Spica]

You don't have to be a Democrat to see Republican stances as the abhorrent shit they are, it's not Dems that fault America only has 2 parties.

I don't consider either of those parties to be my allies.

I'll just repeat what I said in another thread:

Intersectionality is a pretty important concept in modern feminism and queer rights movements. A (too often) overlooked category of oppression and privilege is class. Considering that Democrats largely serve the interests of the capitalist class, and the vast majority of queer and transgender people are not of the capitalist class, the overall policies of the Democratic Party are harmful to most LGBTQ+ people. It cannot be understated that queer people are more severely affected by poverty and homelessness, or that the well-being of poor transgender people is largely dependent on medical procedures that they may never be able to afford. What hurts the poor and disadvantaged hurts queer people even more. The Democrats will continue to deny us proper healthcare and free access to the means of survival, while maintaining a rigid class structure that oppresses everyone and affects minorities more harshly than their straight/white/cis counterparts.