The two are not mutually exclusive.
-
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
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Quit a few non-democratic countries out there that make voting compulsory then, lol.
True, but Sanders has raised effectively nothing for down-ticket races versus Hillary who has raised millions.
No but since they have limited funds they'd be better off using them wisely instead of jousting at windmills.
And what does that tell you then? What is the real difference between a democracy and an authoritarian state when both force you to vote? It would only be democratic if one of the choices is something like 'I conscientiously object to voting for any candidate'. That way, you're only showing up to vote as a civic duty akin to census forms or taxes but are not forced to vote for someone you don't want to.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think having a presidential candidate is an essential piece of the puzzle and through that campaign a lot of people will learn about Green Party policy. For many it might be the first time they learn of the party's existence.
Box of Kittens
Banned
It says that during a heated primary campaign people on both sides get angry.
JesseEwiak
Member
You want Warren in the Senate forcing Clinton to the left, not stuck in a useless VP slot where she's sent to dead Prime Minister's funerals.
Most people ignore the green party. It doesn't even factor into their calculus. They'd be better off getting people in the House and actually getting something done, they'd get a lot more positive exposure that way.
shinra-bansho
Member
Elizabeth Forma will be in her mid-seventies in 8 years. Her state is solid blue. She'd make it a two old white women ticket. She's one of the worst picks floated.
natjjohn
Member
Because they (Bernie supporters) would be taking action directly against what they are professing to want (progressive movement). It's pretty simple. US got 8 years of conservative politics due to a smal number of folks voting Nader instead of Gore. You don't get mulligans, and the folks that did those votes I'm sure wish they could do it again.
If the same thing happens and we get stacked conservative Supreme Court, will be even more devastating. Won't matter how liberal the president is afterwards as the court will be locked and loaded.
Bernie supporters should be thinking long term to what best gets them to what they want. Having a moderate progressive now paves the way for someone more liberal later by having a friendly Supreme Court for years and should a hyper conservative swing come through, help protect things from getting crazy.
Third party votes are a waste for almost any office and election. Wish they weren't but that's the system. System is set up to vote for the candidate with the best chance to win that most closely matches. For Bernie supporters and president, the democratic nominee is that candidate. Voting anywhere else, is a waste for them.
November is so far away and in politics that might as well be years so will be interesting to see where things sway.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The following
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Congo, Democratic
Republic of the
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Greece
Honduras
Lebanon
Luxembourg
Mexico
Nauru
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Singapore
Thailand
Uruguay
Frankly, I never had any idea there were that many
Wait, Mexico is a dictatorship? That doesn't sound right. Their president was elected in 2012, unless something changed.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I know, it's crazy. I had no idea!
All of those Authoritarian states making people vote!
Over 744 million people!
Just don't tell Republicans, we don't have enough bombs.
No, I'm pretty goddamned sure they have a democracy.
EDIT: That link doesn't say anything about dictatorships...
Colonel Mustard
Banned
Let's stop perpetuating this myth, please?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
bruh
Oh fuck me! It's getting really hard to tell these days. I can't wait for the election to be over.
BearFlexington
Member
I can't. Just noticing her name sits at the top when I search for information on potential running mates. I'm of the mind that Hillary should bring Bernie into her camp (if he's willing and it comes to that) and crush any hopes of a Republican upset.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
No she wouldn't have. More blatant historical revisionism. All the mass protests all over the world- million man marches in many European cities was over the fact that there was no credible between the war on terror and the rhetoric on invading Iraq.
Lots of people have pointed out, and correctly predicted what would happen, including people like Chomsky and Hitchens. That was predictable as this was old hat. AFAIK, those individuals who voted against were not labelled as traitors and lynched to the cross.
Virtually all of media reflected on starting another war, on the fact that Blix failed to find anything, and as the months passed, the idea that they would have useable chemical weapons became more and more questionable.
And around the same time, when the 9/11 hijackers were known to be saudi officials, the charade was up.
Your twisting history if you are trying to paint a narrative that Hilarys hands were forced. Sanders on why he voted against, summing the long list of unredeemable lack of foresight and warmongering idiocy you would have to engage in. It was apparent in 2002 as it was now; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdFw1btbkLM
No need to be a smartass. My point stands. How can you claim to be a champion of true democracy and then FORCE voting for candidates especially if you don't provide a third option or a conscientious objector option? I mean we look down on dictatorships and authoritarian states when they force voters to vote against their will. Like I said, it's a fine line. Voting can be a civic duty but it's undemocratic to force someone to vote for someone they don't really want to vote for.
If voting is seen as an example of democracy in a society, having the option to not vote is perhaps an even greater example. Where corporate interests, political pressure, media, government, societal norms still have no bearing on whether you can or cannot vote.
You really think elected officials in NY wouldn't have had any negative pushback if they went against the grain?
Do you have an example from someone who isn't from 270 miles from the place it happened?
Why do you think that certain former mayor is still relevant somehow when his only point is 911?
And what happens in the rest of the world is off little importance to US politics.
If you followed it for more than a year you would understand how little the US public gives a shit about the old continent (and vice versa).
And I can link you to a much more famous speech about an elected official saying that he's not interested in doing the Iraqi dance again.
No one of importance was looking at Sanders in 2002 and looked at him like his opinion was worth considering anyway, he didn't have enough influence to stop the invasion anyway so let's not act like his stand had any value in the grand scheme of things.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The problem is you have not made a cogent argument as to why all of those countries, where over 700 million people preside, are wrong. You have only presented an ideological pie in the sky narrative, with no substance. I also don't think it's necessary in most of those countries to fill in every section of the ballot, but submitting one is required. At least in that case it will be measured so we know the difference between those who are choosing not to vote for any candidate, versus who are lazy fucks.
You do have to give some credit though. His argument was not one primarily of isolationism as I suspected, it was of cost and unintended side-effects.
It does however completely ignore this: http://i.imgur.com/vPQ0I48.gif
At the end of the day my biggest issue with the Iraq war was not that we went, but that we did not raise taxes to go. If we had to raise taxes, then perhaps people would have taken the cost into account, and that graph would not be as absurd as it is.
That was pretty much the argument to not bother invading Iraq.
Let's not act like he's some incredible maverick that had the idea spread through the whole world either.
e: and you're absolutely the cost was absolutely not accounted for.
The worst part is that they had the gall to lobby for a tax break because apparently it was too hard for rich people to live when everyone else was supporting the war effort.
Where the fuck did I say anyone was wrong? I said when you think about it long and hard what is the real difference between a country that purports to be democratic but forces mandatory voting without an option for conscientious objection and an authoritarian state that does the same thing.
Let's just say I'm glad I live in a country that won't force me to vote against my will. There is nothing more democratic than that. Also I mean are you honestly holding up countries like Honduras and Brazil and Egypt as more representative of democracy than countries like Canada and others where voting isn't mandatory? In Egypt, allowing free elections and no Mubarak corrupt influence also lead to Egyptians democratically voting in the Muslim Brotherhood which the Army eventually deposed in a coup. The only real pie in the sky narrative is your own.
Yoda
Member
You guys are really blowing this out of proportion. The same bullshit was present when Hilary lost to Obama. Voter enthusiasm is the only thing that will be depressed with Hilary, I seriously doubt any Bernie supporters will vote for the Republicans... How could a liberal stomach voting for the party which is responsible for the on-going bullshit in Flint? Defense spending out the wazoo? Kicking people with pre-existing conditions off health-care? I could write an essay, sure there are issues the Democrats are just as bad if not WORSE than Republicans but on average they are an order of magnitude better.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Citation fucking needed. Compulsory voting caused them to elect the Muslim Brotherhood? that's news to me.
Also, did you just conveniently ignore Australia and some of the other countries on the list? Australia is Number 9 on this list. Luxembourg, who is number 11 on the list. Or, perhaps Uruguay which is number 19. All three of which are ranked higher than "The Ability to be a Lazy Fuck" Utopia the United States at Number 20.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
Fucking yup, this right here
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
Except, you know, Sanders voted against it., As did many others.
Yeah this thread is wrapped up. What a great post.
So that means I could say if you voted Clinton over Sanders don't you dare look a member of the lower class in the eye and tell us you give a shit about us, because you've just shown that's a load of bullshit. I am a minority as well, and I believe a person like myself would be treated equally under Trump or Clinton. They are both monsters.
legacyzero
Banned
Sorry, But I absolutely dont agree with this. Maybe I'm miss-reading, but some believe that Bernie is WAY more qualified in that department, as I do. But I will resent somebody telling me that I dont care about ANYbody, ESPECIALLY minorities. I am FULLY aware of the tough times they have and do face and want so much for that to change.
I am a white man who loves and respects all, and demands equality in all those things. I dont allow my idiot right wing family members who dont seem to understand those things talk shit about it without me trying to turn the conversation and educate.
Dont think for a moment that, because I'm white, and a male, that I dont care, or dont represent the minority cause, because that is bullshit. Dont tell me that I cant be part of the conversation just because I dont support your candidate, and we have a difference of opinion on who would do it better.
You can't in the same breath yell about the cause, and then tell me I cant be a part of that cause.
EDIT: I must have misread. Apologies
Yeah, I'd vote Hillary any day of the week over Trump, that hateful ass bastard.
The post I quoted didn't read like that specifically, so if so, I apologize.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
If you're willing to either not vote, or vote for Trump in the event of Sanders not getting the nomination, then you're no longer part of the cause.
The thread is specifically about people considering not voting at all if they don't get their preferred candidate. That post you're quoting is a response to such a notion, not a response to the concept of white allies in general.
lastflowers
Banned
She made a mistake. It's alright if you don't weight the decision highly, or want to excuse her decision. That's fine. It was probably one of the major reasons why she lost the 2008 primary. 8 years later doesn't suddenly make it 'okay'. It was just as boneheaded a decision now as it was then.
Yes we can say you aren't for the cause. Not voting Democratic is voting AGAINST the minority and LGBT community. There is only one major political party whose goal isn't to fuck over gay people or minorities. And not voting for them is not doing what you can to help them. If you have any sympathy for their struggle there is only one single option in presidential elections and it shouldn't even be something you need to debate or question if you actually care about this communities like you claim to.
If you live in a swing state and don't vote Democrat it is very safe to say not many African Americans or LGBT people would be very happy with that decision you made as it fucks them over.
Melkezadek
Member
You honestly believe that as a minority Hilary would treat you like Trump would?
As a minority, I think that is absolutely crazy. Please explain your reasoning so that i might further understand.
TemplaerDude
Member
So now it has become "either vote for Hilary or you are a racist".
America, everybody.
America, everybody.
I don't think you can play oppression olympics when it comes to choosing between Trump and Hillary, because one of them is clearly not inciting violence against protesters and spewing shit about minorities and lower class.
Donald openly attacks minorities in his rally speeches. Hillary constantly speaks of the need to protect the LGBT community and not deport people and tear them away from their families.
One wants to deport people. One doesn't.
One wants to curtail LGBT rights. One doesn't.
Yeah exactly the fucking same. Come on. You aren't this blind.
Melkezadek
Member
No. At best you're apathetic which to me, is just as bad. The reality is that the President will either be Hilary, or a blatant racist.
You can say you can vote "other", but the reality is that either Trump or Hilary will be president come this time next year.
legacyzero
Banned
No, but if you vote for Trump... Closet racist at the very least
No. It's vote Democrat or you are actively harming minorities. And it's been this way since the 1964 election. Because it's a fact.
TemplaerDude
Member
It's hard to disagree with that, honestly.
Saying all Trump supporters are racist is like saying all Muslims are terrorist sympathizers.
When Trumps ENTIRE campaign message is built around racism towards Hispanics. It is the centerpiece of every single speech he gives. Yeah it's safe to say they are racists. It's like saying "I may support the KKK but that doesn't mean I am racist!".
If you support an open racist you are going to get branded a racist or at the very least a supporter of a racist, and fairly so.
Melkezadek
Member
No, Trump supporters are either racist or apathetic to the racist rhetoric that he's been spewing since the inception of his campaign.
I don't see how that is any better.
There's a certain threshold of how much I am willing to compromise- yest Trump is worse, but both Clinton and Trump pass that standard. What would Clinton do for me? Nothing. Would Trump we worse? Yes. But I am not going to vote oppression over more oppression, I rather not vote at all if that's how fucked up the game is. Well actually that's I lie, I'd write in sanders.
Not as a minority, but as a member of the lower (middle) class, Clinton and the establishment have done nothing but disenfranchise people like me in the States.
legacyzero
Banned
Ignorance deserves education. But if you know, and dont care about the fact, then that makes you an asshole.
- Status