ryutaro's mama
Member
Or you could choose one of these:
Pick a 3rd party who won't be noticed and/or further social change.
Sit out the election and in no way further social change.
Vote for the other candidate out of childish spite.
This "I'm a progressive but if Hillary is the nominee, I'm not voting" shit is stale
- Thread starter PlayALLtheGames
- Start date
- Status
Or you could choose one of these:
Pick a 3rd party who won't be noticed and/or further social change.
Sit out the election and in no way further social change.
Vote for the other candidate out of childish spite.
Right, I read your posts before I responded. Probably the takeaway you should have from my response is that they don't seem to present any coherent ideas or points. That's why I was asking you what you were trying to say!
Obviously people are going to be upset if Bernie supporters don't vote for Hillary in the general. They want Hillary to win the election, that requires getting as many votes as possible for her. So just saying "well don't be mad" is not, like, very persuasive. I feel like being mad is a pretty reasonable choice.
Why do you suggest they shouldn't be upset and try to convince the holdouts?
cpp_is_king
Member
No, I didn't look up Pryor or Sykes. Upon looking them up now, the best I can find is that they consider Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law". Incidentally those are the same words what Trump used too, but he still supports reasonable exceptions. A lot of Republicans don't want to allow it ever, for any reason, even if the mother is definitely going to die. So, without more details on what Pryor and Sykes actually believe, it's hard to make a judgement.
Do you have a link that goes into their opinions on Roe v. Wade in more detail?
not psycho
Member
Many Americans have a warped idea of what voting is. This idea has been pushed by the government (for example, no day off for voting), who benefit from the status quo. The idea being pushed is that voting doesn't matter. Local votes, state votes, primary votes, congressional votes, presidential votes, doesn't matter. Might as well not bother unless there's a perfect candidate you fall in love with. Really, we don't mind. In fact, we're not even going to let you vote unless you travel to another county to get a voter ID at a department that might be open one day a week if you're lucky. And by extension, don't bother running for office; if votes don't matter, obviously that doesn't matter either.
That is the status quo.
And it's wrong. While horrible, Trump himself is proof that even on the biggest stage, an engaged group can go up against the party wishes and simply out-vote them. There are obstacles. Superdelegates. A brokered convention. But it's possible.
It is unjustified to characterize voting as meaningless, and not voting as a protest against the system. It seems clear that, if people didn't buy into the lie that voting can't do anything, it would be much easier to affect things by voting than by not voting.
That is the status quo.
And it's wrong. While horrible, Trump himself is proof that even on the biggest stage, an engaged group can go up against the party wishes and simply out-vote them. There are obstacles. Superdelegates. A brokered convention. But it's possible.
It is unjustified to characterize voting as meaningless, and not voting as a protest against the system. It seems clear that, if people didn't buy into the lie that voting can't do anything, it would be much easier to affect things by voting than by not voting.
I'm sad that 1984 has already been referenced in this thread, because I would otherwise reference it here.
If your argument is really that saying something is "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law" is not suggestive of the decisions people would make about that thing if they had the power to do so, then I feel like it is hard to advance this discussion without going way back to first principles like what words mean or how to construct a mental model of what people are likely to do.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Stellar work there, OP. Truly, you are among the enlightened few.
BearFlexington
Member
Shouldn't this be enough really? How many more lives do we feed into the meat grinder?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
If Bernie manages to pull the numbers and get the nom, that would be amazing. Unfortunately the numbers are not bearing that out, and that is the general reasoning behind considering Clinton a lock for the nom, not some weird loyalty although there are admittedly people both here and in the world at large that are all in on her.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
guess what? with the way the electoral system is built in the united states there will always be 2 parties that actually have a shot in an election. so, if you're not voting for one, you are, by default, voting for the other. this will be a trump vs clinton election. you can apply whatever logic you want to make yourself feel better about sticking it to those damn dems (who obviously want clinton over sanders by a good margin) but you will be shouting into the dark. whatever smug satisfaction you and others may feel writing in someone's name and then getting a trump potus, will most likely be outweighed by the decades of damaging ripples he will have on this country
i'm also curious if you understand that sanders has surely changed his mind on issues before? or voted in a manner to regret later? he wasn't born into this world campaigning the exact set of beliefs he has this moment. i often see critique for clinton for changing her mind on issues but that is literally her job as a progressive, to PROGRESS. to listen to her base and evolve with the times. to REPRESENT them
Trump wants to feed that meat grinder with innocent families and wants to completely re-write the rules of engagement so he can do whatever the fuck he wants.
TRUMP/ MEAT GRINDER 2016
ryutaro's mama
Member
Like they did when Obama won the nomination, right?
They don't seem to post on GAF.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Honestly, were are the Hillary voters who are going to abandon the party if Bernie is elected?
FunkyMunkey
Banned
where are these people? i haven't seen even a fucking fraction of them on any social media sites i visit. like they are literally so drowned out by sanders supporters saying the same thing that i can't even see them?
i have seen plenty of conservatives choose anything over voting for a "socialist" though
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I would honestly like to see evidence of this, I don't care if the source is Breitbart, Stormfront, whatever.
Monocle
Member
I totally agree with the OP. The cold reality is, if Hillary gets the nomination, a vote for her = a vote for minority rights. It's as simple as that.
Staying home or voting for Trump is a disgusting dick move that will serve only to show how out of touch you are with the state of American politics and the plight of the millions of people who are less privileged than yourself. Like, for example, all the people of color who can't vote for their own interests because of voter ID laws specifically designed to thwart them. But I guess they're not your problem, right? It's not like we as a society and a species are in this together or anything.
Staying home or voting for Trump is a disgusting dick move that will serve only to show how out of touch you are with the state of American politics and the plight of the millions of people who are less privileged than yourself. Like, for example, all the people of color who can't vote for their own interests because of voter ID laws specifically designed to thwart them. But I guess they're not your problem, right? It's not like we as a society and a species are in this together or anything.
Brutalitops
Banned
Man, some of the posts ITT really make me want to see Trump win. It would be a sight to behold on left leaning sites like GAF and r/politics, and I say that as someone firmly in the centre.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Yah? Why is that.
Monocle
Member
That's just callous and petty.
Refusing to vote for someone because of that very specific issue is "sticking it to the Dems"? Are you serious?
Bush -- along with Clinton -- "evolved" on the issue, too.
Good for them?
GuessMyUserName
Member
Nobody said democrats would abandon the party if Bernie won. Nobody.
"Unelectable" always referred to Bernie's chances with the full GE electorate, not with dems.
We literally have gay marriage because of SCOTUS and people question if it's really that bad to let Donald Trump stack the same bench of judges with corporation loving conservatives?
You'll have to excuse my French but are people this stupid?
Was June 2015 that far away?
For the record, Trump actually want to shred the 1rst amendment because it's unfair people get to criticize him.
You'll have to excuse my French but are people this stupid?
Was June 2015 that far away?
For the record, Trump actually want to shred the 1rst amendment because it's unfair people get to criticize him.
Yeah man, some of these posts totally make me want to see minorities and women get shit on even more in this country. Wouldn't that just stick it to those posters?
Brutalitops
Banned
To be honest none of the contentious issues this election are massively relevant to my situation so it makes no difference to me who wins. So I've kind of taken to watching from an outside perspective.
I would obviously rather Hillary win though.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Because "lulz" and it would make people he doesn't actually know or care about "salty"
cpp_is_king
Member
It very well could be, but unlike you i need more than one liners to feel comfortable that I have all the facts. Trump said exactly the same thing and yet somehow I feel like his actual position that he detailed is something I could support as a compromise.
Is it really that outrageous to say "what is their *actual* position? What would they do?"
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Well, I'm not gay nor am I a minority, so not my problem; amirite?
Seems I am right.
Jesus.
ryutaro's mama
Member
This dude is posting like the Presidential election is the SuperBowl and he's taking the underdog for the lulz.
It's outrageous because he literally said what he would do.
Brutalitops
Banned
Well I do literally have a bet on Hillary to win. I'll get a nice few hundred when or if she does
The funny/sad thing about this: "is SCOTUS all that important?" has been one of the most substantive responses to the issue thus far in this thread.
They have no counter. And they know it. They claim to like Bernie's policies, but they're fine with closing the door on them if they don't get them now in 2016. Thus, the crickets we're all hearing.
You're completely right. Even if you absolutely despise Hillary Clinton (and there are many legitimate reasons for such an attitude), voting for her is still an unfortunate necessity to stop the Republican contender.
But the full GE electorate is like 47% Dems or dem leaners. It's the same thing.
It is absolutely correct to say that logically, if Bernie is less electable than Hillary, there must be some group of voters who would vote for Hillary but wouldn't vote for Bernie. Otherwise how else would it work?
And yeah, it's not unreasonable to be frustrated if you're a Bernie supporter. But, again, there don't seem to be any on GAF, probably for demographic reasons.
Brutalitops
Banned
I'm not straight nor am I white.
GuessMyUserName
Member
The logic seems to be "the current [well, past] SC still got gay marriage passed, so everything else should work out too"
FunkyMunkey
Banned
if that vote for the war is enough for you to give power towards trump, who is more war/violence hungry than any other candidate, you must really, really despise most of the population in the country considering how many people wanted to invade (with much worse and more emotional reasoning than hillary i might add)
but do what you want. if the dozens and dozens of people here (who are more eloquent than me) explaining to you and others why what you're planning to do is harmful towards the country, isn't enough, so be it.
not psycho
Member
It could work if there were people who wouldn't vote at all with Hillary vs Trump, but would come out to vote against Bernie.
ryutaro's mama
Member
It does not seem like your position here is falsifiable. Regardless of anything anybody says, including Trump or his potential nominees, if you feel like Trump will probably be fine based on the current evidence, why would that feeling ever change? There is no way to know what they would actually do short of them doing it.
VendettaRed07
Member
Thunder Monkey
Banned
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Yes. Let's erase his identity because he doesn't think like you. Quick, somebody call him an Uncle Tom. Let's stop beating around the bush and say what we mean!
Brutalitops
Banned
Maybe I just consider some other issues to be more important.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
While this is true, I suspect when people talk about Bernie being less electable than Hillary they're primarily talking about the statistical effect of enthusiasm. Which is less about Hillary supporters now who look at Bernie and go "euh I'm not voting" and more about the potential of people coming out for Hillary who otherwise might have just stayed home.
GuessMyUserName
Member
... Right. There must be some group of voters who would vote for Hillary but not for Bernie... from that other 53% that are not dems.
I'm not sure how you didn't get that?
There's plenty of support for Bernie on GAF, just no tolerance for those that would switch to Trump. Because voting for Trump is voting against Sanders's whole platform.
"I've got nothing to lose so fuck those that do"
ryutaro's mama
Member
I have no idea what you are on about.
Yes, important like hoping Trump wins for the lulz inducing left fall out.
Your words.
- Status