-
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
uncelestial
Member
I absolutely love Condorcet method. I wish we would do it. :/ Fat chance tho.
lastflowers
Banned
Doing my part in Seattle.
Maintenance
Member
This. The shaming Hillary stans are doing to people that are not voting for her is terrible, hell even on GAF people are going batshit insane if you tell them you're not going to vote for her.
That's democracy folks, you might not like it but it is within their rights to do so. You are within your right to not like that too, but shaming people because of it is just shitty behaviour.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
I voted Nader in 2000 and have no regrets.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
And this is how we get low turnout numbers. Maybe your state would turn blue if everyone that thought like you actually exercised the right that people throughout history have fought and died for.
I hope you didn't live in Florida.
You have no examples because there are none. It has only "worked," if that's even the right word, when courting a group that cares about one issue about all other ideologies or issues.
I'm talking about racists. I'm literally only talking about racists. That's it.
shoplifter
Member
Florida wouldn't have mattered if he hadn't lost his home state. A state that the democrats had won the prior two cycles.
Do you really think that Wall Street word for word wanted the tea party and what it stood for? Do you really think they wanted government shutdown and permanent gridlock that caused massive instability in the stock market?
No, they just backed it because they didn't like Obama regulating banks and the like, they rode the momentum and fed it. I think you give Wall Street(which isn't a hivemind) far more credit than they deserve.
And, let's be clear here, people showed up in 2012 just fine.
Agreed on that, too, but you know how these things go.
A Link to the Past
Banned
*nods* The only people who could reasonably enact a change are the people who stand to be harmed by the change. It would take civil unrest to push it through, and I don't know that people would get upset enough to take it that far.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Cute
I'm going to take that as a "no, there aren't any, I'm wrong"
But feel free to prove me wrong. Go ahead. I WANT you to prove me wrong.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
This is shock of the decade.
uncelestial
Member
There is for the voter who you think should've changed that "0 vote for Clinton" into "1 vote for Clinton." You don't get to tell someone they have to do that. Sorry.
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
not what i asked or part of what my post proposed but let's tackle that anyhow, right?
You think Nader splitting some of the vote helped or hurt Gore? And would you say that we were better for Bush or could've things been better under Gore?
shoplifter
Member
State ballot initiatives.
"Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
Stop acting like there is no nuance here. Stop trying to make Clinton seem as relatively right as trump or the GOP. It's just silly
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Maybe thousands wouldn't be dead if Bush wasn't president.
Hey if you're a defense contractor that has a conscience you probably made big bucks with Bush while having you conscience clean that you didn't vote for him.
They do what they want, they better not complain about the results if they sit it out.
When you get Patriot Act 2.0 you better not complain that this is bullshit (seriously don't Trump would send you to prison or clean your assets).
Not when it comes to the Electoral College.
I'll feel safe voting for a third party candidate (probably, again haven't decided 100% just yet) this year because my state will be red no matter what.
Omegasquash
Member
Yolo?
Not voting is terrible and really shows that you don't matter. I don't care if you vote hillary or not but not voting doesn't help anyone.
shortsFortallPeople
Banned
Again, i'm not putting the blame solely on Nader. Gore wasn't the best candidate and the Supreme Court shouldn't have voted the way they did, I grant anyone that.
But i pose these questions then: Did Nader running make America better? Could you find anything in the 8 following years that pointed to his running making a positive difference for progressives?
I didn't think so either
no one "has" to do anything, ever.
let''s not get bogged down in semantics: if you are a liberal who supports Bernie and you stay home or don't vote for Hillary against Trump, you are actively thwarting the progress of your political goals and of Bernie's political goals. it could be stupid, it could be selfish, it could be naive, it could be any word you choose. but, at the end of the day, the word that comes to mind is "counter-intuitive." it's that simple.
"shame" is irrelevant. if you place your "shame" over your political ideology, then I think it's fair to say your voting philosophy makes no fucking sense.
Melkezadek
Member
But this is the point i'm making. If they really feel like it would be futile, then it wouldn't make a difference if it was Bernie's or Hilary's name.
For the record, I do not believe that, but they're using that logic to do nothing. It doesn't make sense.
Omegasquash
Member
And then have to deal with the dog shit smell in front of you for four years, and the lingering stench for much longer than that.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Again, it's not a matter of "you must do this," it's a matter of "you must be sure to fully understand what could happen from you doing what you're doing."
If the people abstaining ultimately go on to push the Senate and House further left, then awesome - if it ultimately winds up just being a typical Democratic turnout, I'll be really disappointed lol.
And if you're a member of a marginalized group of people, you then will get your face dunked into it.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
a.) Gore won my state
b.) Two party system is awful
c.) Nader votes are constantly overstated as a reason Gore lost, as others have pointed out.
Cybrwzrd
Banned
The siren song of keeping social issues in the spotlight over fiscal and foreign policy is so powerful. You throw out words like Social Justice or Pro-life and the basic uninformed voter from both sides has something easy to comprehend to get worked up over. What percentage of Democrats even care about let alone know of Glass-Steagall?
Maybe my state would turn blue if they would put forward candidates I support. This isn't college football with blind fandom over the team's color.
Maintenance
Member
uncelestial
Member
Who says "shame" has anything to do with anything? Are you referring to the "shame" someone feels when they vote in a way that doesn't square with their beliefs in a way in which they are comfortable? Who are you to decide that the differences between Bernie and Hillary aren't big enough to care about on behalf of these people? Who are you to say that they're "close enough" for everybody's liking?
Omegasquash
Member
There's that, too.
They're always overstated, we agree. I just figured it was a good target for a YOLO post.
in a world where they are both juxtaposed against Trump? yes, we have more than enough evidence (including very very similar voting records!!) for me to say, objectively, that Hillary is far closer to Bernie than Trump is.
the shame was referencing another post in this thread, not yours... should have quoted it
yes, how dare the Democrats defend the rights of minorities and women
Ok, at least your voting.
And you HAVE to eat it.
Hillary isn't quite as appetizing as a hamburger though... Maybe a hamburger dug out of the garbage, covered in maggots.
CenturionKei
Banned
People just dont like Hiliary. Is there anything wrong with that?
balladofwindfishes
Member
1912 maybe didn't end in as big of a disaster as 2000, but it's a much better example of how a third party can spoil someone from being elected. We've had a lot longer to study it and it was a much more clear election in terms of third party influence.
What would WWI have looked like with Taft at the helm? Would Taft had held a third term, due to being in the middle of WWI? If so, would the amendment limiting 2 terms be added in the early 1900s, instead of mid. Then what about FDR? With only two terms... and so on.
After the election, TR went back to being a Republican, some Bull Moosers went to Democrats, and it was business as usual.
So yea, third parties are influential. In getting the other side elected, We know this. We have history to show this. To deny it is to deny history.
What would WWI have looked like with Taft at the helm? Would Taft had held a third term, due to being in the middle of WWI? If so, would the amendment limiting 2 terms be added in the early 1900s, instead of mid. Then what about FDR? With only two terms... and so on.
After the election, TR went back to being a Republican, some Bull Moosers went to Democrats, and it was business as usual.
So yea, third parties are influential. In getting the other side elected, We know this. We have history to show this. To deny it is to deny history.
CharminUltra
Member
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
The dog shit is also covered in vomit and has e-coli
Yes, when it's usually because they don't like her because of propaganda spread by Republicans, and subconscious sexism.
Omegasquash
Member
"But surely, it will be different this time."
shoplifter
Member
Of course it hurt him, but that's not to be blamed on Nader or people that felt a vote for him was more appealing. Be a better candidate, win your own home state and the Florida fuckery doesn't happen.
Winnable (granted that demographics are different to varying degrees now) states Gore lost, any of which would have won him the election:
Nevada ( Clinton won both cycles)
Colorado ( Clinton win 1992)
Ohio (Clinton won both cycles)
Florida (Clinton won 1996, granted JEB! in office)
West Virginia (D lost for first time since 1984)
Tennessee (Clinton won both cycles)
The only one of those states where Nader votes potentially mattered was Florida. You can't assume that people that voted Nader would have voted for Gore, or even voted at all.
It mattered in a single state, which unfortunately for internet inventor Albert Gore was the one that ended up costing him the presidency because he couldn't carry states that his boss won.
Stop. Just stop.
I saw my first Facebook post from a Bernie supporter saying "I'll vote for Trump over Hillary" this week. It took a strange left turn into a "She's coming to get our guns" thing.
I like Hillary but I'm old. I think that's because, sitting in the "upper middle class" but living in an insanely expensive city to make it, I pay an insane amount of taxes right now. With 2 kids in daycare (also required to have a large combined salary, and a happy wife) and a house (which also has insane property taxes), we really barely break even. I just can't bear to vote for someone who wants to substantially increase that. I think that makes me a horrible selfish human. I've grown to accept that.
I'll say again, if someone wants to run a socialist party for President (or a "Democratic Socialist" if it makes you feel better about yourself), they should. They probably already do! It'll might cinch a Trump victory this year, since the racists, Christians, and libertarians seem to have no problem working together. But I'd rather have more parties than listen to people "holding their nose" while they vote.
I like Hillary but I'm old. I think that's because, sitting in the "upper middle class" but living in an insanely expensive city to make it, I pay an insane amount of taxes right now. With 2 kids in daycare (also required to have a large combined salary, and a happy wife) and a house (which also has insane property taxes), we really barely break even. I just can't bear to vote for someone who wants to substantially increase that. I think that makes me a horrible selfish human. I've grown to accept that.
I'll say again, if someone wants to run a socialist party for President (or a "Democratic Socialist" if it makes you feel better about yourself), they should. They probably already do! It'll might cinch a Trump victory this year, since the racists, Christians, and libertarians seem to have no problem working together. But I'd rather have more parties than listen to people "holding their nose" while they vote.
Melkezadek
Member
What has Hilary said or done that even remotely compares to what Trump says and claims he will do?
I'm not a Hilary supported for many reasons, but there is no comparison. I can't make someone understand the gravity of the difference between these two candidates (and we are dealing with two candidates, this is the real world, I'm sorry)
The "lesser of two evils" is a massive understatement. If people feel "shamed" because they would rather effectively do nothing to stop this little Hitler, then that's on them. But that is the reality of the situation. Sorry that it's a hard pill to swallow.
Omegasquash
Member
People really don't understand that the Donald is campaigning on just that, and not getting that if he wins then lots of people get the shit covered in vomit and disease that they have to eat and still deal with years later.
Thank you.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
To disregard any criticism of her as those two things is really sad.
kame-sennin
Member
Yes, 60% of eligible voters would be ideal. The specific number isn't terribly important; what's important is reaching a threshold wherein the media and the international community can no longer deny that the U.S. government is illegitimate. This isn't a strategy that I'm invested in - I spend most of my energy on activism/direct action - but it would be a significant blow to corporate control of our government. If you want to see the end of the type of corporatism we are currently living under, it's extremely important not to endorse one of their representatives during elections. Voting for a Clinton or an Obama or a Bush sends the signal that you consent to be governed by the 1%.
Edit: Voting for Trump is an endorsement of nativism at best, fascism at worst, obviously.
Voting in the U.S. is not a political act.
- Status