2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX - Page 22 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-26-2016, 12:25 AM   #316
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Because you're applying your own belief to everyone else. Call the candidate selfish. That's fair. I fail to see how people are selfish because they have different views from you.


It's not having different views, it's making a choice to throw away the tool they've been given to make any sort of difference.

There's an entitlement to "well the candidates suck" that I can't get behind.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 12:32 AM   #317
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewson View Post
Aren't the vast majority of votes cast for the candidate who the voter thinks suits their best interest and therefore selfish by definition?


I think it's our responsibility to choose between the two candidates who *best represents* our priorities and values.

Yes, this could mean a third party.

BUT

In a close election like 2000, your throwaway vote could have made a difference and we would have been spared the horrors of the Bush presidency. You can't sit back and pretend like you have no responsibilities here whatsoever for said vote because the parties have failed to cater to you and "earn" your precious vote.

I'm not going to pat you on the back and applaud your dignity and purity.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 12:38 AM   #318
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,049
Local Time: 10:29 PM
Skipping back a bit, but I'm going to take a tack that is not often seen on Interference and side with LN7. I think "if you don't vote for Hillary you're voting for Trump" is overly simplistic and idealistic. Perhaps it's idealistic that a vote for Jill Stein or whoever is a vote hoping to inspire change in the future, but if you don't try to make change according to your own values at some point in your life you might as well just give up entirely and become a Democratic shill.
__________________
cobl04 is online now  
Old 05-26-2016, 12:40 AM   #319
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,387
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
It's not having different views, it's making a choice to throw away the tool they've been given to make any sort of difference.

There's an entitlement to "well the candidates suck" that I can't get behind.

It IS having different views. You view it as throwing a vote away. They don't always view it that way.

By this standard I could make the argument that every democrat in Texas is throwing their vote away because their vote could be used to support third parties. How selfish of them.

Or, every republican who is part of the margin of victory in Texas is also wasting their vote for the exact same reason. Selfish that they don't want to give us an additional party, given that many agree with libertarian views and a substantial amount of the votes needed for major party recognition is available in Texas.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 12:47 AM   #320
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,002
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

you may not like it, but -- and i will qualify my statement with the following -- if you live in a state where your vote matters it is your civic responsibility to vote for the major party candidate who best represents your values. if you can't figure out who that is, it's your job to figure it out and make peace with it, down to the state and to the Congressional race. if you choose not to use it productively, you do own the result. if you believe that blowing up the American way is genuinely better than leveraging the current system in order to change it, you probably have limited experience with actual revolutions.
Tend to agree with this
I hope to convince at least a few very disaffected Bernie voters (those say they won't ever vote for Hillary) before the General Election.
__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 12:56 AM   #321
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,002
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
What you own is not doing everything you could to keep a crazy person out of power. We've been given a lesson in how strategically one must vote in the parliamentary system, strategy exists here too, and it's not so much that one is entitled to a vote, but one loses much credibility, say, to criticize the Iraq War if one voted for Nader in Florida in 2000, fully aware of how close it was and how critical that state was well before Election Day.

People are free to choose purity over practicality all they want. They just own a measure of responsibility when they don't use the tool that they have in the most advantageous way possible to keep the crazy from power. It's not that it's my vote, it's that you are responsible for it and all its repercussions. It doesn't work to say "I voted for Nader but it's Gore's fault for losing to Bush."
Yup.
__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 01:05 AM   #322
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,014
Local Time: 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
Skipping back a bit, but I'm going to take a tack that is not often seen on Interference and side with LN7. I think "if you don't vote for Hillary you're voting for Trump" is overly simplistic and idealistic. Perhaps it's idealistic that a vote for Jill Stein or whoever is a vote hoping to inspire change in the future, but if you don't try to make change according to your own values at some point in your life you might as well just give up entirely and become a Democratic shill.
It is silly, in the same way that I couldn't tell if people are having a laugh when they say it was Nader's fault that Bush got elected.

It's ridiculously simplistic and only reaffirms my opinions on liberals.
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 01:19 AM   #323
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,049
Local Time: 10:29 PM
I mean I totally I get the argument, but I think it is pretty offensive to demonise people for voting for the person who most closely aligns with your values. A political vote is a very personal thing, and if no one starts small, how will anything ever change?
__________________
cobl04 is online now  
Old 05-26-2016, 01:30 AM   #324
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,054
Local Time: 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
Skipping back a bit, but I'm going to take a tack that is not often seen on Interference and side with LN7. I think "if you don't vote for Hillary you're voting for Trump" is overly simplistic and idealistic. Perhaps it's idealistic that a vote for Jill Stein or whoever is a vote hoping to inspire change in the future, but if you don't try to make change according to your own values at some point in your life you might as well just give up entirely and become a Democratic shill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
It is silly, in the same way that I couldn't tell if people are having a laugh when they say it was Nader's fault that Bush got elected.

It's ridiculously simplistic and only reaffirms my opinions on liberals.
Without addressing the 2000 election specifically, in a system as firmly two-party and first-past-the-post as the US presidential election, it's not simplistic - it's pragmatism.

A third party run can be successful if it starts from a sufficiently popular base and does not simply cannibalise from one side of politics without eating enough to overtake both opponents. The whole reason Australia introduced preferential voting is because FPTP three-cornered contests can and do lead to the victory of the least popular candidate.

Look, what do you prefer? Clinton to beat Trump in a pure two party contest, or for some random minor parties to cannibalise enough of the left-wing anti-Trump vote that Trump scrapes to victory? You can't be idealistic in FPTP systems. You just can't, or you hand victory to your most hated option.

This is why I hate FPTP so much and advocate for preferential systems wherever possible. In Australia I can satisfy my Green, social democrat, and democratic socialist inclinations quite merrily without worrying that I will contribute to a Coalition victory in a tight race. In New Zealand I don't have that luxury for my local member, so I hold my nose and vote Labour because fuck the Tories. Likewise, if I voted in the US, much as I would rather vote for Jill Stein, I would hold my nose and vote Democrat because fuck the Republicans. My vote in that situation goes where it is most useful: the party most likely to keep the right out.

PS Vlad, your derogatory use of the word "liberal" is strange when you clearly hold liberal positions on social policy.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now  
Old 05-26-2016, 01:34 AM   #325
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 151,054
Local Time: 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
A political vote is a very personal thing
I would suggest public office is the exact opposite of personal.

Quote:
if no one starts small, how will anything ever change?
If it's an FPTP system, start small and build your platform through other means, then enter the race when you have a critical mass to pass the two established parties.

Anybody who expects the US party system to shift to include a powerful third party needs to seriously reassess their expectations, given the current two-party system (for all the ideological shifts of the parties themselves) has endured at every election since 1860. No Westminster system can claim that. Cannibalising a small part of the far left Democrat vote in the name of ideological purity doesn't seem to be achieving a lot except slightly lowering the "post" the Republicans must pass for victory.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now  
Old 05-26-2016, 01:39 AM   #326
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,002
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

Except votes for Nader kept a movement alive. Votes for Gary Johnson keep a movement alive. They open the door for these political parties to go somewhere. Whether that's for a seat in congress or for spreading their beliefs.

If you're not endorsing a two party system, who should vote for these third parties? Isn't it ridiculous that we call them "third" parties, if we aren't in a two party system?
Well that's why Nader voters should have only voted for him in safe States, so he could keep some influence.

There's a progressive radio host name Thom Hartman (rip Air America Radio) who is the Brunch with Bernie radio host lHe was telling progressive people back in the mid 00's to go join their local Dem party and go up the ladder over years to change it from within

Really, that"s what the right wing Republicans started to do after their decimation of their party in LBJ v Goldwater.
I was 11 when that happened, so the history was something I learned decades later.
They set up the long game to take over State legislatures that then also would appoint the State's Secretary of State who controls certain voting issues (it's very late here ).
In Fla 2000 I think it was Katherine Harris (Republican).

And they also draw the District Lines . it may be true that they took that to ridiculous new heights to thrawt Dem voters
__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 01:44 AM   #327
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,002
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
It is silly, in the same way that I couldn't tell if people are having a laugh when they say it was Nader's fault that Bush got elected.

It's ridiculously simplistic and only reaffirms my opinions on liberals.
It's at least partly Nader's fault W got elected.
__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 01:58 AM   #328
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Explain
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 02:13 AM   #329
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,014
Local Time: 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
This is why I hate FPTP so much and advocate for preferential systems wherever possible. In Australia I can satisfy my Green, social democrat, and democratic socialist inclinations quite merrily without worrying that I will contribute to a Coalition victory in a tight race. In New Zealand I don't have that luxury for my local member, so I hold my nose and vote Labour because fuck the Tories. Likewise, if I voted in the US, much as I would rather vote for Jill Stein, I would hold my nose and vote Democrat because fuck the Republicans. My vote in that situation goes where it is most useful: the party most likely to keep the right out.
You know, I still get stumped by these two titles. I can't tell if they're meant to be the same thing or there are differences between the two.

Quote:
PS Vlad, your derogatory use of the word "liberal" is strange when you clearly hold liberal positions on social policy.
Not sure why it's "strange", it's very common among leftists. And I'm fairly sure you understand that 'liberal' entails more than just being progressive socially.
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 03:15 AM   #330
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,387
Local Time: 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
I'm going to take a tack that is not often seen on Interference and side with LN7.

I don't know if this is supposed to make me feel better or worse 😂

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post

Look, what do you prefer? Clinton to beat Trump in a pure two party contest, or for some random minor parties to cannibalise enough of the left-wing anti-Trump vote that Trump scrapes to victory? You can't be idealistic in FPTP systems. You just can't, or you hand victory to your most hated option.



This is why I hate FPTP so much and advocate for preferential systems wherever possible. In Australia I can satisfy my Green, social democrat, and democratic socialist inclinations quite merrily without worrying that I will contribute to a Coalition victory in a tight race. In New Zealand I don't have that luxury for my local member, so I hold my nose and vote Labour because fuck the Tories. Likewise, if I voted in the US, much as I would rather vote for Jill Stein, I would hold my nose and vote Democrat because fuck the Republicans. My vote in that situation goes where it is most useful: the party most likely to keep the right out.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that if a third party candidate chooses not to run, it could be beneficial to whichever side they might be taking votes away from (I also think it's silly to single out the left; this election's big third party candidate, Gary Johnson, will be taking mostly from the right).

I'm disagreeing with the idea that "if it's close enough" to your views, you owe an obligation to to vote against what's not your views.

Though not the likeliest of scenarios, I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson and Stein pull just shy of 10% of the vote. We are facing the two most disliked candidates in modern history. Look at it from the reverse side... if a republican absolutely cannot stand Hillary Clinton, is he or she obliged to vote for Donald Trump? Someone that simply doesn't stand for what they stand for. Why wouldn't they just vote for Gary Johnson and push for major party status and equal ballot access for the libertarian party? That's a very realistic goal, for this election.
__________________

__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com