ShockingAlberto
Member
There is no left-wing version of the Tea Party.
The Tea Party got their candidates elected.
-
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.
Bernie or Busters are flocking Philly to protest DNC, city projecting 35-50k protesto
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
There is no left-wing version of the Tea Party.
The Tea Party got their candidates elected.
That's not very nice. You need these "full of shit" people to beat Trump.
EdibleKnife
Member
Ok is this about your beliefs or about your community? Because this "have her prove me right" idea seems like you take this alot more personally than it needs to be. People actually do care what happens to minority communities. Many of those same people share the same communities and want to see Hilary in office rather than Trump for the sake of a democratic supreme court that won't roll back or take away rights from individuals which is a lot more likely under a god-fearing conservative Trump court. The potential for change for the better exists there. If you care about your community, all this stuff about going against your beliefs means diddly squat. Either you want better for your community based on the choices you're given or you care more about personally being proven right or wrong.
SneakersSO
Member
I'm not mad, i'm simply responding. I'm passionate about what I believe in, but I know nothing will change in this election. Time for that is well over.
People seem to be upset I won't vote for their candidate, thats all this discussion really boils down to.
Ask Nader voters how that went.
People are upset that you SAY you don't want a Trump presidency, but will not DO anything about it.
I respect Trump voters more than you. They're idiots voting for a blustering, regressive shitbag, but at least they're voting to achieve the changes they want and prevent the changes they don't.
Melkezadek
Member
So this will be the third time I'm engaging you. Maybe you'll answer this time. You said it was funny that people's response is always "Well at least it's not Trump!" without any other arguments for her.
I ask again; What do you do when the answer is always "Well I don't trust her!"?
So, what can Hillary Clinton reasonably do to get you to believe her?
SneakersSO
Member
Get me to believe her before the election? Nothing. But should she win, she'll have ample opportunities to either make a believer out of me, or reinforce my already negative impressions of her.
I never said I didn't trust her. That's not my stance on her candidacy.
You do realize that you are not answering his question, correct?
Melkezadek
Member
That isn't what I asked. You made the claim earlier in the thread that people only say "Well she isn't Trump!" when trying to convince people to vote.
So again, what is one to say when they lay out all the bullet points as to what/where/why/how with "I just don't trust her".?
soul creator
Member
As liberals are routinely fond of saying (but seem to often forget), there's more to politics than just "which presidential candidate will you vote for?"
He may be politically active in a million other ways (or not!), but I don't think you can really infer what he will or will not do simply based on the fact that he doesn't want to vote for Hillary. Voting for a presidential candidate in and of itself doesn't automatically make someone the pinnacle of democratic expression.
You're asking me to write your defense for you? That's not my job, it's yours.
Speak for yourself. I vote in every election. Not just once every 4 years. And I don't treat my vote with a carelessness many people seem to think they can afford to do. Act privileged that they can just throw their vote away because "Clinton will most likely win anyways," a logic that worked out oh so well for the British recently.
I grasp that politics is more then a zero sum game and understand change is fucking hard and takes blood, sweat and lots of effort. I don't think this country is in a position to make protest votes. Shit is too important to risk a Trump presidency to maximize my idealism through my vote for a candidate that is functionally worthless. If you want more effort on certain issues then get out there and do work the other 364 days. Because history shows that is more likely to build momentum for change then merely a vote on election day.
I live in Baton Rouge, LA. This shit is real and down the street from me. So I take offense at the assertion that people disagreeing with you don't care. It's precisely because we care that people are getting so upset over you and others approaching a serious matter like this with such a closed mind.
Now how about you actually read my wording
People are upset that you SAY you don't want a Trump presidency, but will not DO anything about it.
Voting down ticket does nothing to stop a Trump presidency.
Voting 3rd party does nothing to stop a Trump presidency.
So unless he's out there stumping for Clinton while refusing to vote for her himself, how does what you just said have any bearing on what I said?
Quit trolling dude. And if you aren't trolling it is looking pretty indistinguishable so it is just as bad.
Melkezadek
Member
Yea, it's pretty much why I figured he was avoiding my question 3 times in a row. It's an irrational argument. He's just here to stoke the flames. Not interested in any real discussion. He's just trolling.
Not trolling. Hillary herself has changed her message from issues to "We have to stop Trump." The theme of this convention has turned into "We have to stop Trump." Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren have all changed their stance to "We have to stop Trump." And now the argument from all the Hillary Supporters is "We have to stop Trump."
SneakersSO
Member
I also vote in every election, and have seen how negatively affected my community & the people from it continue to be by people who are supposedly in their corner. And every time, its "change is slow; just stick with it & eventually it'll get better". And as time moves forward and things get worse, i've finally decided "Ya know what? Fuck that. I'm only voting for candidates who give a fuck about this, and have a history of doing things in that arena".
Your biggest priority is keeping Trump out of the white house, my biggest priority is doing better by my community. I'll place my vote where I feel that is being given the highest priority, and you do the same. I'm not gonna chastise you for voting the way you are choosing; i'm happy that you have a candidate you can stand behind and vote for that who is within the coveted two-party system.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
You are trolling. Or you are being intentionally obtuse and disingenuous to make insincere arguments that serve no other purpose but to be inflammatory and send posters on wild goose chases that will end in frustration because of your disingenuousness. Whatever it is, it's getting obnoxious.
WhateverItTakes
Banned
You want your voice to be heard, I can dig that. However, using the Brexit as a protest vote has put the UK in disarray, from personal experience. There is a risk. A risk most posters here are arguing isn't worth taking.
There's other ways. Getting progressives voted in for downticket elections. Throwing your support early around the next progressive democrat. Bernie did come damn close this election. Someone other than Clinton as the opposite, and with some smarter choices in strategy, it would have been much closer, maybe even a win. Imagine if Bernie started planning for this at the start of Obama's second term, instead of only joining the Dems in 2016? Imagine a candidate doing that from now, with all the people who voted for Sanders as a base already?
Even if the DNC is as crooked as some are saying (I personally think they were unprofessional and certainly misguided), Bernie did well. The progressive candidate in the next election can use the controversy to stamp down on that and stand an even better chance.
I'm guess I'm trying to say a Hillary loss, or narrow win, isn't particularly necessary to have a progressive candidate in the next election. Fighting her with your vote isn't going to make the country, electorate and politically, any more liberal. In fact, it will contribute to making a government that contribute. Maybe your gamble will pay off and Trump isn't in the White House. But why take such an unnecessary risk?
Oh, and sure, I'm not expecting Bernie voters to do everything he says. No one should follow blindly. But if you supported the man for what he stands for, his policies, why not support the effort he made to affect the platform, help put the country in the direction he wants?
Besides if your reasoning is #neverHillary of course. But then you weren't voting for anything, were you?
The only obnoxious thing is the beatings people get here for having different opinions. People have a choice, they can vote however they want. They have personal reasons for voting how they want, and telling people that their personal reasons are stupid and wrong is not very "Uniting" It's one thing to explain the stance of your candidate, it's another to tell people they're dumb for not seeing issues the same way you do.
You say this, and then people present to you facts about what Hillary would do on every issue you have brought up and you move the goal posts to it being an issue of trust.
My biggest priority is moving the country in the right direction(which I would define as a robust liberal platform that encompasses specific economic, social justice, domestic and foreign policy goals) as fast as possible. Which is why my first question to you was "how is A going to get us to C?" Which still hasn't been answered.
My issue with Trump winning is one in the same with the above. It regresses progress and sets it back. Likely makes it worse for up to another generation.
If your main priority is the issues you have spoken about, why has it been so hard for you explain and convince someone like me who is simply asking you to provide how your logic will better achieve the goal we both seem to share?
Chaos2Frozen
Member
do we have a rough estimate of how many protesters showed up?
maquiladora
Member
Reporters mentioned three groups each with numbers in the hundreds, so I'd estimate no more than a couple of thousand.
No, your trolling is pretty obnoxious.
They can vote however they want, no one has said any differently. However they are not free of being challenged for those decisions when they can't articulate and defend the rationale for their vote in a coherent and credible way. However, I haven't seen any name calling. That seems to be a figment of your imagination. Unless you are conflating people calling a person's choice unwise to calling the person stupid.
Now, on your end, are you up for dropping the broad brushing and troll like behavior?
Chaos2Frozen
Member
So more than we thought, but less than they hoped.
Prove it.
Seems to me Bernie managed to shift the party by joining the club and mobilizing support for his issues and getting people behind it. More then has been done by Ralph Nader or Jill Stein in over two decades. Make the case for me that the next step should be a protest vote? Explain why that will be the most effective next step and what it will achieve? Keeping in mind the ultimate consequence of a successful protest vote could be a Trump presidency.
What people like you are also missing is something that ironically liberals love to point out about the Republican party. They lose 08, they lose 12. The consensus lesson is for the party to become more inclusive, more moderate, less vitriolic. But that isn't the lesson they took now is it? Why would you presume that your protest vote, if successful, if it knocks Hillary out of the presidency, will cause the party to move toward your ideal position?
Bahahahaahahahah
Absolutely not, it's been incredibly entertaining these last few hours. Political Compromise hasn't been achieved in thousands of years. It's not going to happen in a NeoGAF thread. Enjoy the ride.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Bold move Cotton.
Well at least we got the truth out finally.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
What you miss, here, is that Trump's entire candidacy is predicated on the notion that he is going to pick up the "disenchanted with the status quo" voters and thus expand the Republican Party such that it will overcome its growing demographic deficit. You could look at it as "every vote not cast for Hillary is a vote wasted in stopping Trump", but one could as easily say that Trump's candidacy was predicated on such a thin sliver of demographic probability that any non-two party voter he DOESN'T capture is one step more he has to walk to cross the 270 mark, which no credible aggregate pollster currently predicts he will do. (And Sam Wang, who kicks Silver's ass up and down the lane, hasn't even budged his needle yet, even with all of this noise, because all the punditry in the world doesn't change the statistical math).
Also, to your earlier point - were this 2000, I'd vote for Nader in a heartbeat, because A) he still would have been a better POTUS than Bush or Gore, and B) it was the totally incompetent and underhanded conducting of the electoral process in Florida, as well as Gore's own missteps and personal lack of charisma, not Nader voters, that got Bush the presidency that year. If your success is predicated on a small margin of voters behaving the way they basically always behave, you have already lost.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Gooooood. This is a pro business, centrist party. We won, sucker. We have the majority. If you want to change that, you better convince the rest of this party to be socialists just like you are. Until then, deal with it, because this is how democracy works. If you can't whip up enough votes during the primary to get your candidate, you don't get your candidate, period. So cry me a river all you want but we've already got a boat sailing straight for the white house and at the end I'm just going to use your tears to salt my victory steak; a steak that was not raised free range, that was slightly poisoned by tracking, and was imported from Japan courtesy of our new free trade agreement with them.
Mmmmmmm.
Nah I call bs on that. They aren't getting coverage atm.
Bernie supporters made a giant joint that said "burned by the dnc" and stopped traffic.
https://mobile.twitter.com/beCleveland/status/757652241125965825
https://mobile.twitter.com/WalkerSkyNews/status/757629379895824384
https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/HappeningNow?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc^tfw
#happeningnow
#occupydnc
Much like bernie they aren't geating coverage but theres 1000s.
17 have been arrested so far.
What?
Your argument to support Nader is basically well, I can throw my vote away because it wasn't really my team that cost Democrats the White House anyways. Aren't you a special snowflake!...And If it had? What then?
Actually, yes Bernie got her to move her positions by holding out for so long without endorsing.
If he'd endorsed sooner, do you think she would've been more willing to compromise?
Also, I was very clear that I don't want to knock Hillary out of the presidency. If the election plays out in a very surprising fashion, my state might be important. Probably not, but maybe. If it is, I'll cast my vote for Hillary.
Also, I'm getting tired of this "reciepts" bullshit. You can't even have a discussion on this fucking board right now without somebody asking for a bullet-point list and definitive proof and links, and videos to prove that your links aren't making shit up, etc...Makes discussion impossible. Who has time for that shit? Go look shit up yourself. That sort of instantaneous inquisition pile-on is a form of bullying, it is intended to stifle discussion, and it needs to go away. I'm not impressed by it at all.
Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that people who settle get the same shit fed to them forever. That's just obvious. The people in power, who have things good, don't want change. It's called inertia. No receipts required.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
No, my argument to support Nader is that I think he would have been a better president than either Al Gore or George Bush, as he was more connected to the average American and had a more far-reaching vision for the betterment of America, even with some of the aspects of the Green Party I don't care for. I actually don't think any third party candidates that I am currently aware of would be particularly better than Clinton this year, so I likely will vote for her, despite my distaste for her.
That it tends not to actually make any real difference is my rationale for why voting third party does not make one an unconscionable monster, as has been implied several times in this thread.
soul creator
Member
It's interesting that other modes of political expression that are not voting didn't come to mind for you
Are all the progressive groups that organize and fight for the issues liberals care about, but don't endorse or vote for any one particular candidate all of a sudden "not doing enough to stop a Trump presidency"? It would seem odd to go up to one of those folks, ask "but are you voting for Hillary tho?", and then when they say no, suddenly act like they're now de facto Trump supporters.
Obviously, I can't fully speak for the specific poster in this thread that everyone's talking to, but it's a common trend I've noticed. It's also weird, because a ton of voters outside the traditional two-party system are from groups that in theory should be in the Democratic base. But for some reason, people seem to have a hard time understanding why others might be skeptical of the mainstream Democrat that's trotted out every 4 years suddenly becoming a champion of progressiveness and willing to change the core assumptions of a system that's caused so much harm.
If someone responds to all of that and says "yeah whatever, Hillary is still better than Trump though, vote for her", that's fine (and most left-leaning folks, including myself would likely agree!), but I have no problem understanding why someone might still be skeptical and not want to fully support either of them. Those favorables are low for a reason, and it's not just because of right-wing conspiracies.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
stopping fascism is very important
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
It made a big difference in 92 and 00.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
priority number 1 at this point.
I didn't ask for dissertation. A simple logical breakdown of why a protest vote would be the best move going forward, compared to alternatives, to bring and enact more progressive platforms in America. You made the assertion that voting holdouts are how change is made. I challenged that assertion and explained why. I am wanting some substantiation on that. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
What Bernie did was not protest voting. In fact Bernie has argued against this and probably will do again at the DNC.
I'd like to read that too.
Even in a pluralism systems like you can find in the EU protest votes are fucking useless.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Indeed it is, which is why I am not voting for Trump, despite being a part of the demographic he has to turn out in record numbers to win. In fact, I am pretty sure I am voting for Clinton, even despite disliking her, because she really is the least worst option on the ticket, that I am aware of.
Arrogant Bastard - Perot pulled equally from Bush and Clinton, and Gore lost because he ran a poor campaign, ran away from his politically masterful boss, and didn't anticipate Jeb Bush's shenanigans in Florida.
You realize that a third party candidate that just pops up every 4 years has almost statistically no chance to win right? That outside of satisfying a personal conscience that values purity of ideals above all else, it is throwing your vote away?
That the statistical probability for swinging an election, while low, is much, much more likely. Leading to an outcome worse then any of your preferred outcomes?
Lets assume 1,000,000 more people felt like you and voted not pragmatically but through a strict prism of idealism and it did swing an election for a Republican. Say a Trump. What would you say to that?
excelsiorlef
Member
It's interesting that other modes of political expression that are not voting didn't come to mind for you
Are all the progressive groups that organize and fight for the issues liberals care about, but don't endorse or vote for any one particular candidate all of a sudden "not doing enough to stop a Trump presidency"? It would seem odd to go up to one of those folks, ask "but are you voting for Hillary tho?", and then when they say no, suddenly act like they're now de facto Trump supporters.
Obviously, I can't fully speak for the specific poster in this thread that everyone's talking to, but it's a common trend I've noticed. It's also weird, because a ton of voters outside the traditional two-party system are from groups that in theory should be in the Democratic base. But for some reason, people seem to have a hard time understanding why others might be skeptical of the mainstream Democrat that's trotted out every 4 years suddenly becoming a champion of progressiveness and willing to change the core assumptions of a system that's caused so much harm.
If someone responds to all of that and says "yeah whatever, Hillary is still better than Trump though, vote for her", that's fine (and most left-leaning folks, including myself would likely agree!), but I have no problem understanding why someone might still be skeptical and not want to fully support either of them. Those favorables are low for a reason, and it's not just because of right-wing conspiracies.
Bluntly?
Yes. Any progressive that doesn't do literally the only thing that can stop a fascist and one of the most regressive and oppressive party platforms from coming into power aren't doing enough.
You can decry Trump and everything he stands for but if you literally do not vote for the only person who can stop him, everything you say and do means functionally nothing.
Stein and Johnson aren't going to win a state let alone beat Trump.
But I hear ya with the future of the Supreme Court on the line and in face of one of the most horrific, regressive and oppressive party playforms in GOP history and in face of a rise of American fascism, now is the perfect time to launch a protest vote to hurt the Democrats.
titiklabingapat
Member
So...how many protesters has shown up so far?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked