CharminUltra
Member
Are the maggots organic?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
This "I'm a progressive but if Hillary is the nominee, I'm not voting" shit is stale
- Thread starter PlayALLtheGames
- Start date
- Status
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I should clarify; This was in reference to opportunistic people who try to preach liberal values but have life destroying stances on abortion, war, torture and the death penalty. That's what I meant. Not to to people who are moderates.
I believe you got the right to be a moderate, but the moderates I am talking about is like one mishmash of no concrete political climate, and they just swing along the fences of whatever that will keep them in office.
You know what the republicans stand for. It's out in the open, but it's a completely different game when you got people who are almost secretly undermining democratic values from within. So many times Obama has been stopped by his own party. They have sabotaged him time and time again.
It is unforgivable when you're in a position of knowing better, but you still choose to do the wrong thing due to lobbying.
Abstrusity
Member
To be fair, how many Arab springcountries came out of it okay?
Personally, if there was an American Spring, it'd follow pretty close with the French one. Far right or far left extremists take root, new revolution shortly thereafter with moderates, then everything starts working well when the second group fears a third group.
The Artisan
Member
congratulations GAF. you have convinced me that I should vote. how does it feel to have made a difference?
I didn't think my post was going to spawn this many responses. So I'll give an overall response to all of you at once:
-I don't want Hillary in power just like I don't want Trump in power. I didn't think enough at first how bad our reality would become if Trump did become president.
-Some of you mentioned how your backgrounds and families' backgrounds play into why we need to vote against Trump. Well I can relate because I come from a family who may very well suffer at the hands of his hypothetical presidency.
-Yes, marijuana legalization is very important to me. I've mentioned before how it is my foundation for choosing who to pick. And at least with Hillary that reality is not completely shut out, but it definitely will be if Trump or any other Republican sees the light of day in the oval office.
-But just to set things straight...if by some miracle, Sanders gets it, then I will give it to him. Otherwise, yes, I probably will give it to Hillary.
I'm a more understanding person but going forward I think it's best to have these discussions with a cool head and best to avoid condescension, no matter how un-budging people can be.
HylianTom, I'm not sure what question you're talking about that I avoided other than shoplifter
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
A lot of the issues Obama had with his party were because the dems had to add DINOs as a means to sway voters over to their side in the aftermath of Bush and 9/11, things that combined to make the nation more conservative.
Many of those Blue Dogs aren't in office any longer and most wouldn't get elected as dems in this day and age.
Context is key with these things.
Many of those Blue Dogs aren't in office any longer and most wouldn't get elected as dems in this day and age.
Context is key with these things.
Abstrusity
Member
Didn't Lieberman run as a Republican soon after that, and lose?
Lmao, the lack of self awareness in this post is funny when you consider that Hillary literally voted for the war in Iraq. Get over yourself.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Lieberman was primaried in 2006. He then ran as an independent candidate and got re-elected. He still caucused with the Democrats but endorsed John McCain for president in 2008, then he retired in 2012.
Where you get to arbitrarily, and quite falsely, draw up the goal posts. I would personally frame the comparison as more like going to a restaurant and ordering pizza, at which point you're served a slice of cardboard with some sliced tomatoes and a little milk poured on top (Sanders) at which point your friend says 'that looks gross, I'll take a burger' at which point a quality 1/4 lb. piece of well cooked angus comes out and placed in front of them.
What with Sanders being a complete fucking sham and all while Clinton has substance, history, and credentials. But we're all entitled to make up whatever shitty analogies we feel like.
The simple fact many on the "true left" don't seem to understand is that the vast majority of America does not agree with you. We're still in a time when being a socialist is more damaging politically than being a Muslim, and Donald Trump is making a lot of hay denigrating Muslims.
People like the idea of universal healthcare in theory - the second you staple a middle class tax increase onto that the numbers fall through the floor.
Same goes for free college education or any other progressive program. The average American is a capitalist because America is a capitalist society. If you don't like that you need to do a hell of a lot more than voting for a "social democrat" in a primary and then walking away and it's going to take a hell of a lot of time, because you are the fringe.
We achieve progress in this country through compromise. Sometimes that compromise occurs between the two parties that be. Sometimes one party falls so out of favor that the other takes control, then the compromise is from within that party's ranks. No one gets to play dictator, at current.
What we do have is a GOP candidate running on a platform in which he explicitly states he's going to govern as a dictator.
But hey, act like the choices you make are entirely your own and effect no one else if that is what makes you feel good. This is America, you have the right to be every bit as delusional as you want.
Abstrusity
Member
Oh, okay. My autocorrect corrected Lieberman to LIEberman. Too much echochamber, I think.
funkystudent
Member
I get both sides.
Even when both candidates seems like pieces of shit you should probably vote for the one who isnt openly racist.
BUT voting for someone who you still wouldn't vote for if there was any other pick is still not great and you might just want to stay home that day and do something else instead.
It speaks to the overall degradation of american politics that this election is a thing. Most years Hilary wouldn't have made it given her baggage and Trump definitely wouldn't have made it because he is a insane person but here we are.
Openly racist megalomaniac shit sandwitch versus untrustworthy career politician douche. PICK A SIDE!
Even when both candidates seems like pieces of shit you should probably vote for the one who isnt openly racist.
BUT voting for someone who you still wouldn't vote for if there was any other pick is still not great and you might just want to stay home that day and do something else instead.
It speaks to the overall degradation of american politics that this election is a thing. Most years Hilary wouldn't have made it given her baggage and Trump definitely wouldn't have made it because he is a insane person but here we are.
Openly racist megalomaniac shit sandwitch versus untrustworthy career politician douche. PICK A SIDE!
Wasn't that guy Gore's running mate?
e:the fuck! he was!
Gore is a fucking moron!
Nah, online judgement isn't a big deal. I don't like Hillary. I'll begrudgingly vote for her should it come down to it. I'm explaining why, but that's not enough for some people because they say I'm embarrassing myself.
Melkezadek
Member
Certainly you understand why people jumped on your comment.
"I was following the line of conversation already established by a couple of posters."
Would have been a good place to stop. Yea, it's weird you singled you out only, because many posters were continuing the putrid analogy.
but the "because it's Hilary" comment really comes out of nowhere and it makes it look like you have a persecution complex. There's no reason to be so defensive about not liking Hilary. Her faults are understood and acknowledged by many.
boiled goose
good with gravy
See this is where you lose me. You are not being fair.
Sanders definitely has credentials, history, and substance. You can disagree with it or that he can realize it, but to say that he lacks those things is just dishonest.
It is just a terrible analogy.
From my perspective this is what Sanders or Bust or Sanders or Trump supporters feel (not me atm!).
There is a restaurant that serves burgers for 1% of people but gives crumbs or nothing to the rest. One option is telling you he wants to change the system so that you get more than crumbs. Maybe it is possible, or maybe it isn't, but you have someone who will fight for you. Another option is telling you that the restaurant is fine, and that crumbs are enough. Maybe you can get two crumbs instead of one. Now the third option is a wildcare. He is telling you that wants to give you more than crumbs, but he is also saying a bunch of bad things too. He also might burn the restaurant down.
I think option 3 is too risky and potentially devastating, BUT I can imagine someone being so frustrated and desperate with the system that they would rather risk it or would rather say fuck it with option 3. It is basic human psychology. Experiments testing out this ingrained sense of justice sometimes result in option 3 being chosen.
This is the last analogy I make.
These too points also lack the nuance I would expect from a self-declared libertarian.
"tax on the middle class" completely ignores all of the healthcare costs we already have to deal with (including copays, high premiums, + tons of restrictions)
"america is a capitalist society". There is no such thing as a pure capitalist or pure socialist society. We have social security, we have minimum wages, we have regulations, we have taxes, we have public schools, etc, etc, etc. Capitalism and socialism are not these completely opposite systems. They are general philosophies that help tweek legislation to make a more fair and functional society. What he have in the US at the top is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism.
Diprosalic
Banned
so? Hillary wasn't an option back then. Point still stands. I mean just look at the Repub debates with all their warmongering, a third party vote if is a vote for the GOP and for a guy like Trump who wants to bomb the innocent families of terrorists.
I could imagine those peoples priority isn't socialist economics either but rather anti establishment.
shoplifter
Member
Box of Kittens
Banned
Not that I think Lieberman was a good choice of running mate, but before 9/11 and the Iraq War he was seen as a largely mainstream Democrat. Like, it was a bad choice of running mate, but it wasn't clear at the time just how bad it was.
But it is exactly how democracy functions in the United States.
You're never, ever voting for a person. You're voting for probable outcomes.
One probable outcome of not voting for Hillary, in your view, is that you deny a "neoliberal shill" the pleasure of taking office. Here are some other probable outcomes:
- Supreme Court swings deep red for a generation
- Backwards progress on women's rights, gay rights, etc.
- Citizen's united likely becomes permanent
- The budget is broken
- Climate change will continue to get worse with no attempt to address it
- Multiple trade wars (trust me, these are not good for workers of any background)
- Deeper involvement and likely instability in the Middle East (believe me, Trump would be way worse than whatever you're envisioning Hillary would do)
- American international leadership is permanently broken
- American regional leadership is dead (good luck talking to Latin America)
- etc.
Anyone who is a serious thinker and avoids making emotional decisions will recognize that this is a terrible idea and antithetical to everything Bernie was fighting for.
Vincent Grayson
Member
I have a lot of serious doubts that most of the people saying this kind of thing will actually do it.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Once we are in the GE, the contrast between the parties will be clear.
I'm curious to see how it will play out.
Expect Donald to massively run to the middle and run a populist, anti establishment campaign. It will be scary, I think.
Except he literally does not have the substance.
His proposals are all impossible to pass with anything short of r/sanders4president taking over both the Senate and Congress. You can't find 51 active politicians in this entire country who would vote through the kind of middle class tax increases he wants to pay for his healthcare plan. His tuition program is literally a a false construct claiming something (universal free tuition) when in reality offering something entirely different (a state funding match program that the state has to opt into).
There are better alternatives to achieve these EXACT SAME GOALS yet Sanders picks the ones that are the most politically friendly because he knows almost no one is going to pay attention to the nuance of his policies. They're just going to hear "Sanders is offering free shit! YEAH!"
And frankly, he completely destroys his credibility with me in how he talks about corporations. He simply doesn't get the problems here. He acts like taxing corporations will fix everything and that he can snap his fingers to make Citizens United disappear. Neither is true and the former would create more problems than it would solve. We need to realign the role of corporations in America, not demonize them.
He's peddling falsehoods and if he doesn't know it he's too stupid for the office he already has, let alone the highest in the land. I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what he's doing though, and has no problems with Weaver and Devine conning college kids out of their money to push his agenda when that very agenda would destroy most of the breathing room needed for those people to achieve a quality standard of living.
He's an ideologue cooperating with two con men and their target audience aren't willing to look behind the curtain because it's nice to feel like just voting Sanders will fix everything.
1. His plan hasn't even dug itno copays, premiums, and restrictions on coverage. You really think he's going to roll out a plan that lets everyone get any care they want, any time they want, with no copays when the medical industry is overbooked and understaffed NOW?
2. You don't need any more nuance than the numbers Sanders' tax policy includes. The math simply doesn't add up. For the middle class he's asking for on average about $4000.00 of additional income tax for something those people currently pay less than $2000.00 for. His plan asks the middle class to subsidize healthcare for the lower class when the middle class simply can't afford it. There has been a thread here arguing the math before, the only retort Sanders' fans ever put up requires massive delusion as to how employment in the U.S. actually works.
So again, if you've paid attention to the actual numbers what additional nuance is needed?
Of course there is no purity, that would defeat the entire point of a democratic society. But the vast majority of the U.S. citizenry identify with the concepts and terminology of capitalism. I'm not arguing that it isn't a broken version of capitalism, it absolutely is. But the average citizen wants to see that system fixed and made more fair, not replaced with socialism.
moved?
That was always the litmus test. Labor before capital is left, capital before labor is right.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Relevant thread to why voting matters:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1198464
(Unless you don't care about women's access to healthcare, of course.)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1198464
(Unless you don't care about women's access to healthcare, of course.)
Which is utterly meaningless, and an asinine reason to vote for someone. It's the equivalent of voting for someone because of their haircut or their favourite TV show.
Netherscourge
Banned
Not voting for Hillary, and letting a conservative win, is the opposite of Progressive.
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
Why have some progress when you can just have a nation regress 50 years into the past instead? That's someone's idea of progress, right?
The question:
I began at the start of the thread by asking how Bernie's causes (or just progressivism in general) would be served well by allowing the GOP to tilt the court in a conservative direction for a generation.
My thinking is this:
it's not sufficient to control the Congress and Presidency anymore if we want to dictate policy. Anything remotely contentious in this political era - a new law, an executive order, etc - is challenged in court as soon as it goes into effect. As a result of this, the judicial branch often has the final word on whether a policy is adopted, or whether it gets killed. Once the Supreme Court rules, there is no appeal. That's pretty much it, until the court composition changes and a chance to appeal arises - usually years or decades later.
Hillary is by no means perfect. She's rather flawed. But pretty much any mainstream Democrat is going to appoint sufficiently left-leaning judges. While the Bernie Wing of the Democratic would not get their nominee this time around, it's pretty clear that they are the future of the party; millennials are a huge generation, and they're going to vote at a higher rate as time goes by. They will get their guy in a future cycle. But if there's a conservative court in place due to 2016's result, anything controversial that this next Bernie-like President signs into law is as risk of being challenged and knocked-down.
Hillary is not ideal. At all. But to allow the GOP a win is to basically close the door for future progressive policy. It's knowingly allowing the movement to die. This does not strike me as the actions of someone who's serious about these issues.
There were no real responses to this. It was overwhelmingly ignored.
I also reframed it in another post that layed-out the legal landscape - the likely consequences of a GOP win in 2016.
The most substantial response was that Hillary couldn't be trusted to appoint liberal justices. Other than that, most folks have avoided answering this point. They have no problem telling us about they feel on other things, how they don't like her, etc.. but this topic is like hot lava to them; they won't touch it. They'll scroll right on by, with no answer.
Since 1992, the Dems have agreed with my primary pick precisely one time; my fellow Dems usually go for the safer, more conventional, more moderate choice. But I've never been willing to say, "oh well. Fuck the movement." And I've never understood it. And I'm asking folks to explain logically - not emotionally - how they justify being okay with fucking over the movement they claim to care so deeply about.
CharminUltra
Member
Everything was better in the olden days.
How About No
Member
But she doesn't match most of my morals, so I'll give a chance to someone who is the antithesis of all of my morals. Also email something something
Re-quoting this since I just saw it and it's amazing.
Very true.
Consider that the R Congress tried to repeal tame as fuck ACA more than 50 times
People tend to forget that Gore was to the right of President Clinton, likely because the Republican smear machine managed to paint the VP as a radical socialist due to his belief in global warming.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
"Kids these days are out of control" - Socrates
Trump's supporters scare me far more than Trump. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I probably won't vote. I don't believe that Trump is going to be able to build a wall on Mexico's dime, he's not going to be able to stop all immigration from happening, he's not going to get jackbooted thugs to deport everyone, etc. For all the shit that people says Bernie couldn't do while in office (and I'll agree there's A LOT of lofty goals in there), they have all the faith in Trump to do what he says. I see Trump and Hillary largely as being able to accomplish the same amount of "stuff" albeit with a democrat or republican twist. The only thing I'm really fearing is the supreme court nomination, so I may change my tune come November if the Repubs are THAT incompetent and petty that they can't even confirm a judge, but as of right now... meh.
Abstrusity
Member
/sMyself said:
All it takes is a good enough speech and enough people who are tired of everything and have the means to fight to get together. It begins always with attempting to do so through the system, and then always, without fail, through force. With success, the law becomes a battering ram as they play whack-a-mole with enemies of the state, seeking purity until, at least, they eat themselves from the inside. Then it begins again. (French Revolution, Egypt) With failure, people are dispersed, and the ideals begin to die.(Civil Wars in general, Gamergate)
It's important to look at people like a river, upon which there is a dam. Normally, the dam should let through enough water to keep the river under control, perhaps provide power, perhaps divert it into raising crops. But close the dam for too long, and the water swells. An ideologue is a storm, swelling the river far beyond what it should. If the dam is closed, and the water swells with the storm, the dam breaks.
This is the story of every revolution. This is why appeasement works so well. Token bills and laws signed or passed are like letting the water go through the dam. This is what's happening to the Republican Party, right now. They talked a big game, about "the illegals" or "the moochers," or "regulations," but then they never did anything about it -- of course, this is because it's not actually any of those groups' faults, but still.
So now they have Trump. An ideological storm, and a swell of people willing to bust through the dam that is the establishment. His speeches are not particularly high brow -- not even terribly-written JRPG villain level like my little one up there was. But he's telling the people what they want to hear, and it's working. As it always has, and as it always will.
That's why compromise, not purity, should rightfully be the aim. The Democratic party is showing stress cracks, same as the pre-Tea Party Republican Party did. Where the establishment went out of their way to defend themselves from the Tea Party and try to shut them down, the Tea Party only struck back fiercer. The Democrats, however, don't have that much in difference with the progressive wing of the same...but their numbers are swelling. Obama did well enough, but not "as good as we wanted," so much of those people chose Sanders over Hillary. Hillary, to her part, has pushed some further left ideals -- likely HER ideals, too, ones that haven't really been politically accepted until recently -- this is why the damage appears to have been minimized. Instead of 30~40% of the electorate deciding "wipe the slate clean. BURN IT DOWN," it's closer to 3~8%.
A revolution, of course, does not always have to be a violent affair. It's just, ah...politically expedient, that way. The trick is to make sure people feel somewhat comfortable, or only a little irked. Beyond that, they get restless. Too much, and they become indolent, opening vulnerabilities in your electorate because people won't vote.
Hmm, fun times. I love explaining stuff like this with just a hint of insanity bubbling beneath the surface.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
It's crazy how the "lesser of two evil" is so anathema to people. How idealistic can one be?
I know it sucks that the system is like that, but come on, I understood the need to vote for the lesser of two evils before I was even old enough to vote. Actually, yeah, I think it was around the first Bush election season, and people were concerned about... the Democrat VP, Joe Liberman, being too conservative. As if voting for Bush would have helped with that! >_<
Officerrob
Banned
The argument is basically: I want progressive change now, but am willing to throw away the Supreme Court that will block any substantial progressive change for a generation. It's quite embarrassing really
Abstrusity
Member
Reason and rationality are not a hallmark of groups of people in general, I'm afraid, especially when they've already drunk the kool-aid. They need a hard smack of reality. You can't reason a point with someone who didn't reason themselves into it.
I'm tired of voting that way. Honestly, I hope the Republicans find a way to screw Trump over (because, for better or for worse... no, its for worse, definitely), he "deserves" their nomination. Screw him over, cause him to run independent, and have Bernie run independent. THEN we'll have an election.
And people who will actually be affected by the disastrous policies of the Republicans are "tired" of people like you being so god damned selfish with the way you vote.
excelsiorlef
Member
And then the GOP controlled house picks the President after no one hits the 270.
Congrats on President Cruz or whomever.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Yeah.
I mean I'm tired of this system too, but wilfully denying reality is counter-productive as all hell.
Mercury Fred
Banned
As a gay man, I've had to vote for the lesser of two evils my entire life.
As has been stated already, it's an incredibly privileged position to not vote or too vote for Trump when the lives of people of color, women and LGBT people are on the line here. Must be nice to be able to be so comfy that you can sit it out.
No, then we most assuredly won't have an "election" at all.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1198436
Causing Trump to move to an Independent ticket (Which is pretty improbable with how things are going at the moment.) is one thing; that will just secure Clinton the vote. Bernie running on an Independent ticket as well however, is the one scenario in which the far-fetched strategy proposed by the above-mentioned strategy would actually work--by splitting votes too wide we'd leave the GE vote up to the Republican-controlled House Of Representatives, which I definitely think would not be something anybody would actually want.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
Liberals have been holding their noses and voting for centrist Democrats for decades. How tired could you possibly be of people who are finally saying 'No' after begrudgingly carrying this party's water for that length of time?
Already voted for Bernie in my state primary but I am horrified at my fellow Bernie supporters say "If Bernie doesn't get it I'm voting for Trump."
Just think for a second, is that what Bernie would want?
Hell just look at Trump's supposed policies, what little tidbits you can find. Jeezus.
Just think for a second, is that what Bernie would want?
Hell just look at Trump's supposed policies, what little tidbits you can find. Jeezus.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Then enjoy sitting out every election for the rest of your life.
- Status