-
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
shinra-bansho
Member
The explanation is your own confirmation bias.
So far as I can tell there's a mix of opinion pieces and news articles in the WaPo link.
And there's been plenty of negative coverage from an array of outlets on other campaigns, Clinton's included.
The media's foremost interest is hits and circulation.
So far as I can tell there's a mix of opinion pieces and news articles in the WaPo link.
And there's been plenty of negative coverage from an array of outlets on other campaigns, Clinton's included.
The media's foremost interest is hits and circulation.
You're not voting to support a candidate's supporters, you're voting for outcomes. Either you care about the outcomes or you don't. It's really that simple.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I have a lot of people try to tell me this, and they can never provide any real details. When I push them on it, they usually spew a bunch of right-wing garbage like "Benghazi!" or "Emails!" Again, without ever giving an actual explanation as to why those were such indefensible crimes.
How about you give it a shot.
Progress is slow because liberals don't fight hard enough?
Are you serious? The only way you'd possibly think this is if you literally skipped history class for your entire academic years.
This is why ideologues and demagogues don't need to ever hold public office
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
Are you seriously going to posit that the Democratic party of the 19th and 20th centuries are the same party we have now after having chased Republicans right for the past three decades? That's the line you want to take with a sitting Democratic President that has eviscerated civil liberties and exponentially increased drone strikes?
Progress and change is slow because that is how our government was set up. The founders of our government purposely created a government that only would change gradually. If you want radical change and revolution then your only options are another civil war or Great Depression.
If you live in a safe blue state, voting third party isn't actively working against anything. But it does make your voice heard: it lets the candidates and parties know that there are at least X active voters who want the country to move in that direction. Voters who aren't satisfied with the establishment.
It's not much, but it's a better way of working towards my ideals than checking the blue box.
Wait wait wait wait
"I'm a Sanders supporter and was going to vote for Hilary, but everyone saying Sanders supporters who weren't going to vote for Hilary are being assholes means I'm not going to vote for Hilary now because I don't like being called an asshole."
Yeah. That statement seems both true and sensible.
...Things changed slowly under Reagan and Walker Bush?
This is the sort of baseless assumption whose sole purpose is to make Bernie supporters who don't want to vote for Hilary feel better and feel more justified in their decision.
We heard about a number of Hilary supporters in 2008 say that they wouldn't vote for Obama, but that actually didn't turn out to be true come voting day. I would be surprised if it was any different this time. Maybe a few more vote third party this time, but I would be surprised if it was truly significant.
Well, what was so radical and dramatic about the change?
Dash_Riprock
Member
I have yet to see anything ever suggesting that.
But sure, continue to spout the "Both sides are the same" BS that is so prevalent is politics.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Also
If a Hillary supporter got salty about Bernie winning and voted for Trump or abstained, I'd call them out on it. That said, the reason why a lot of Bernie supporters are boycotting Hillary wouldn't make sense as a reason that would occur if the reverse were the case, so why is this a "two-sides" thing
If a Hillary supporter got salty about Bernie winning and voted for Trump or abstained, I'd call them out on it. That said, the reason why a lot of Bernie supporters are boycotting Hillary wouldn't make sense as a reason that would occur if the reverse were the case, so why is this a "two-sides" thing
Well she did vote for Iraq. Being part of the group that voted to attack another country and get thousands of theirs (civilians, too) and your own killed is a pretty big deal.
I'll continue with the argument that Hillary supporters have always been confident with their position so there was never really any reason to entertain those feelings. If it were reversed, you can bet you'd see it in some form. Re 2008.
But I digress, I'm not agreeing with their view point at all. I just disagree that somehow Bernie supporters are fundamentally flawed and Hillary supporters are some how superior.
shadowsdarknes
Member
So some Gaffers arguing with you is actually going to sway you not to vote?
Do you realize how pathetic that sounds?
Glad you'd help Trump win the election just so you can make a point against Clinton supporters. Bravo.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I don't think people are claiming that there's a fundamental flaw to Bernie supporters, else I'd be fundamentally flawed. But it should be noted that there's problematic stuff re abstaining, especially given the possible harm that could occur.
Poor line of thinking there.
abso-damn-lutely
GrooveCommand
Member
Your vote does matter at the caucus/primary. It also matters in the general. I used to think like this but I realized that it really is important even if it's projected to be a landslide. Imagine how many people think that same way, and imagine if they all voted.
In practice you're right that your vote won't matter, but it the principal if the matter that you should vote anyways because your vote does matter.
Did you see the graphs you quoted? The Patriot Act? The Deinstitutionalisation of Asylums? The Iraq War? Reagonomics? Banning of Stem Cells? The Constitutional Amendment that banned Gay Marriage? Are you really saying that Reagan and Bush's actions didn't make an impact?
thezerofire
Banned
which amendment is that?
A Link to the Past
Banned
The amendment proposed by Bush to criminalize same-sex marriage
Their divisive natures will encourage votes for the opposite side in congresspeople, so the end result is that Trump's garbage will be mitigated while Clinton's garbage will go through.
We won't be slowly moving forward under them, just standing still for the next 20 years. With the occassional step back.
A Republican president, house, and senate. Shit would get done.
Dash_Riprock
Member
One only needs to look at the Civil War the GoP is currently engaged in to see that would not be the case.
That stuff was happening before Reagan. Tax reduction began under Kennedy and LBJ. The Right since basically forever was all about Economic 'Freedom' and God. A good book if you are interested is One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. That shit started really happening in the 1930s.
And what is so dramatic and revolutionary about the Iraq War? Seems pretty par for the course when you take into account our foreign policy since oil became important and intervening in countries has been a thing for the US since like forever. I'd even say it is a definite improvement over the Vietnam war.
Stem Cells and Banning Gay marriage is a product of the alliance between the Christian right and Corporate America (the Republican Party), which is again, a thing that happened well before Reagan. Plus, it is not like we ever had Gay Marriage before that proposed ammendment. Not quite sure how that is a radical change.
As for Reaganomics, that had its roots deep in the Republican party and Corporate America, so again, not a radical change. Moreover, you are completely ignoring the impact of the globalization had on the United States economy. One of the major reasons for the dramatic increase in inequality and wage stagnation is the lose of manufacturing jobs and those being replaced by service sector jobs. That is what really killed unions and good paying low-skilled jobs - globalization, not Reagan.
Another major factor in inequality and wage stagnation is the dramatic increase in the cost of health care. A lot of the money that would have gone into your pocket is being spent on your health care. Not quite sure how that is a radical change because we have had our shit healthcare system before Reagan. Drug companies, hospitals, Colleges, etc., just decided that it was more profitable to them to splurge on ammenities and fancy new shit that jacked up the price for the rest of us and made them gigantic profits, instead of focusing on cost-savings and quality. Again, not sure how that has much to do with Reagan.
I am not saying that no change happened and I think Reagan was a terrible president, but I don't see any real radical change under his presidency because all of that change was already happening well before that. That is slow, gradual change. And honestly, if you just look at the Great Depression and the New Deal as a huge outlier, shit really hasnt changed much at all.
Plus, even his tax cuts werent incredibly radical or dynamic.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
Also, are you really suggesting that Asylums or mental health facilities were better previously? Yea, those places were some awful scary shit, so I would disagree with that.
Hoho for breakfast
Member
I probably will abstain from voting at all if it's a choice between Clinton and Trump. He's crazy and she's a liar imo. I'm not voting in either of those to lead my country.
The Republicans are tearing themselves to shreds because one side thinks that Cruz and Trump are going to lose them the election and possibly the Senate while the other side are thinking TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.
In a scenario where they secure everything they would all probably be okay.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Hate to just harp on everyone who says that, but just want to say that while it's within your right to do so, you should at least appreciate the impact of abstention.
thezerofire
Banned
the point I was trying to make is that it didn't go through. the system slowed that change
Ted Cruz is an anti-governement, Freedom Caucus member. He can and will.shut down and defund entire departments with the mere use of executive orders. And he'll quickly sign any budget bill and budget cuts Congress put on his desk. And he'll end the ACA with a mere pen.
Cruz will send us back to the 70s with none of the social programs to back it up.
The impacts of his decisions will reduce the size of govermemt and impact the entire nation within a matter of months. To call him regressive would be like calling Microsoft rolling back every Windows 10 PC back to Windows 3.1 regressive.
The impact of Trump is less known, because while I think his ideas of the government and on domestic policy are more traditionally conservative, there's a big question mark there.
? With a solidly Republican congress, none of his proposals will go through. I can guarantee that the ACA will be dimantled, just as Trump promises.
Amibguous Cad
Member
I mean, all that Snowden revelations stuff takes place after Obama got elected. It's not quite clear how much of it is him and how much of it was merely legacies from the Bush era he's kept in place, but either way, he's commander in chief of our intelligence apparatus and hasn't done anything to rein them in.
http://mashable.com/2014/06/05/edward-snowden-revelations/
Plus he assassinated the 16 year old son of a US citizen because his father was a suspect terrorist (in a separate attack, mind, he wasn't collateral damage) http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Religion has been a part of politics forever, but it was under Reagan that evangelicals rearose and asserted their electoral power in the public sphere, and it was under Reagan that they found a willing champion to enshrine the Moral Majority BS as a permanent part of the national political conversation. It's also under Reagan that neoconservative interventionist foreign policy, a sharp break with Kissingerian realpolitik, found its ways into the annals of power and came to shape American foreign policy for decades. Granted, Reagan could not have achieved what he did without Nixon's Southern Strategy laying the groundwork, but the "Reagan Revolution" was most definitely a sharp break with the leftward burst of the 1960s and 1970s. He essentially changed the alignment of the national political conversation so measures uncontroversial 30 years earlier had to be staunchly defended, and his influence was felt for 20 years after he left office.
Hoho for breakfast
Member
Go ahead and spell it out for me if you want because I'm not seeing it.
If I vote Clinton, and then someday I walk into my place of work and am told "sorry, we're moving to country X, pack up your shit", I would highly regret that vote to say the least. That's not saying anything of Wall Street or corporate elections or anything else I dislike about her which I feel has had an immeasurable impact on the decline of the US.
My other option would be Trump. I think it's enough to just reiterate that my other option is Donald Trump.
I think I'll just abstain from voting.
Hmm. Why do you believe that? Your knowledge of her tax policy or is it because she appears to be pro-Free Trade to you, though she opposes things like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Is free trade your biggest issue in this election?
A Link to the Past
Banned
From how you're describing it, you consider Trump a greater evil than Hillary, and thus, if push came to shove, it'd be fair to assume that you'd vote for Hillary, yeah? As such, choosing to not vote for her results in Trump getting a better shot at winning the presidency. If you do not vote, it does not really change anything - we either get a bad choice (Hillary) or an awful choice (Trump). In the former, we may expect pandering or a recurrence of the problematic elements of our society, but there are positive elements that can come from a Hillary win. For instance, if Hillary lost and we hadn't put a liberal-leaning Justice onto the Supreme Court by then, we could see SCOTUS go back to a conservative majority - and if a Justice dies or resigns during a Trump presidency, we could see 6-3 conservative majority, which could last for decades. Further, a Trump presidency could result in some horrid things for non-white people, LGBT people, the elderly, and people in poverty - all people who cannot afford to abstain. LGBT people and non-white people, for instance, have been having to settle for substandard candidates for longer than any of us have been alive, so while I appreciate that you don't like to have to settle, you're speaking from the privilege of being able to not settle and not have any drawbacks to it. Abstention can, for instance, be harmful to trans people, who either can't abstain in fear that a worse candidate could do serious harm to them, or suffer from cis people abstaining because it empowers said worse candidate.
You should read the book I linked since he argues very persuasively that that started happening under Eisenhower, not Reagan. And the groundwork for that change started well before that.
And Kissingerian Realpolitk was a sharp break with the idealistic cold war interventionist policy since Truman, so I am not sure why its return is a radical change when idealist interventionistism has been a part of our foreign policy options since forever.
Again, I am not saying that nothing changed, but how is this a radical change when a party gains control of the white house and congress for the first time in a while and starts implementing the ideas that they have been advocating for a long long time? Sure, the leftward burst was discredited, but that was a product of it being discredited due to a shit economy and good propaganda by the Republicans, but is that really radical?
I certainly don't think so considering that social security, medicare, and medicaid and all the hallmarks of the welfare state still remained, even if they were a bit weakened. Did Reagan put on the breaks for more? of course, but how the hell is that a radical change? It certainly is change, but it is not like the structure or services of the government fundamentally changed.
Hoho for breakfast
Member
Does she though? Does she oppose the TPP or does she say she does now because it's politically convenient to do so? Even if so, why does she suddenly oppose it? What changed? Who even knows!
And I don't know that it's my biggest issue. There's multiple issues I completely disagree with her on, or don't trust her with.
To me Trump is like a loose lion and Clinton is a deadly snake in the grass. She's definitely smarter politically and most likely in general, but I don't believe she's on our side.
My thoughts with Trump are that he'd be so terrible in general that something would happen to bring about a real change more quickly than if Clinton just slowly erodes us. He could push the people so hard that we actually stand up for once and demand change.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Do you think that Hillary would produce a net loss for us as a society vs. Trump?
Is that rush to change worth it, though? Is there any degree of harm that attempting to get quicker change could incur that would make you consider it unacceptable to cause change through Trump becoming President? Isn't it more worthwhile to engage in longterm change by encouraging younger generations to vote in the midterms and put into office the people that they feel will produce change?
I really don't get the argument against free-trade. Economists disagree on a whole lot of shit, but basically all of them agree that free-trade is a good thing. Protectionism just protects a small segment of the economy and a few jobs and the expense of the entire economy and the average citizen who now has to pay more to buy an inferior and more expensive product. The long term consequences of this are not good.
cheezcake
Member
I could survive a Trump presidency but it seems awfully selfish to go that route given you'd be throwing the LGBT community and most minorities under the bus. Especially as its pure speculation about any attitude or political shifts that happen afterwards.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's been spelled out in the thread multiple times, and Angelus wrote a really good, often quoted post that gets into it, but for my part, I've tried to boil it down into a very basic value judgement that you're choosing to make:
That's basically it.
I don't know if this is a good argument because Hillaryis44 was worse than Bernie supporters are now, and I'm pretty certain almost all of them got in line, and that was to ensure the defeat of John McCain.
- Status