-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Stop using my oppression as an argument for your favored candidate
- Thread starter Amibguous Cad
- Start date
- Status
LizardKing
Member
But you contribute to who does.
The truth. Sorry if it upsets you. I agree it sucks and the system needs to be changed. Voting in this case is only about do you want thing a or thing b to win, even if you vote for thing c, you still only influenced if you want thing a or thing b because that's all your vote will reflect. If just between A and B, you want B, and you actually vote for C, in reality you voted for A. So how was your opinion expressed? It's not a time to make a statement about a candidates warmongering for example.
Heavy_D206
Member
I don't like being told how I'm supposed to vote. It's MY vote so I get to choose whoever that person might be.
Telling someone who to vote for is like pushing your religion on someone. It's just gross.
Telling someone who to vote for is like pushing your religion on someone. It's just gross.
What if that person is part of the Westboro Baptist Church? Could you push them to get out of that religion?
LizardKing
Member
If enough people do it it does as long as there is a majority second choice among C voters.
toddhunter
Member
That is fair, but being told your logic is dumb is also fair.
Voting against hillary will only boost Trump, a very far right wing candidate. If Hillary loses, the response will be for the democrats to field a more right wing candidate the next time around, to match the right wing country with now extreme right wing judges.
The only way to achieve what objectors want is to vote for hillary and show the republicans that they are too extreme to win government. The more Hillary wins by, the more they will be required to shift.
Then next time you support your democratic nominee of choice, who now has a better chance of winning.
People need to take a long term view.
excelsiorlef
Member
So hey if you don't want to get criticized for not voting to at least stop Trump don't tell anyone.
Like seriously if you want your vote to be your personal thing that no one can judge you for, then just keep your mouth shut. Vote Stein or Johnson or whatever, and be proud that you took a silent stand that no one will notice.
That said if you want to tell the whole fucking world how your personal morals won't allow you to vote Clinton and ensure a liberal Supreme Court for decades, how you're personal morals won't allow to you to do the only thing that will actually say no to fascism and prevent the Supreme Court from going hard right for decades (aka putting Roe v Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges at risk of being overturned), then please don't whine about how people aren't just letting you have your opinion and are challenging you.
If you want your vote to go unchallenged don't shout it from the bloody roof top.
Like seriously if you want your vote to be your personal thing that no one can judge you for, then just keep your mouth shut. Vote Stein or Johnson or whatever, and be proud that you took a silent stand that no one will notice.
That said if you want to tell the whole fucking world how your personal morals won't allow you to vote Clinton and ensure a liberal Supreme Court for decades, how you're personal morals won't allow to you to do the only thing that will actually say no to fascism and prevent the Supreme Court from going hard right for decades (aka putting Roe v Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges at risk of being overturned), then please don't whine about how people aren't just letting you have your opinion and are challenging you.
If you want your vote to go unchallenged don't shout it from the bloody roof top.
LizardKing
Member
But hey I thought I was expressing my opinion through my vote even if I throw it away on a Green party candidate! Surely my green party vote would tell people I want more left views on the environment.
I'd agree with this.
benjipwns
Banned
Or I can vote for Gloria La Riva to inform them of my choice for a proletariat revolution over more corporatism that doesn't hate gays and blacks as much.
Along with the letters I send cut out of magazines.
I've thought about the dilemma this thread proposes quite a bit.
It's essentially a question of committing to the principle or to the greatest good? Do you, as the captain, go down with your ship despite there being plenty of room on the life boats for the simple reason that you are a person of principle? For me, this isn't an issue. I support Hillary, so she's both the practical and moral choice for me, but if you dislike Hillary, then I can see how this is an issue. And if you believe....if you truly believe that Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or, god forbid, Donald Trump are the right choices of presidents, then I guess I don't have a right to say that you shouldn't vote.
However, I have 2 suggestions.
The first is this: Make it an educated decision. Make sure your have a thorough understanding of all the candidates. Because it took me a long time, but once I got educated about Hillary, I became truly excited about her, whereas before I was merely voting for her out of resignation because Bernie didn't get it. It is very bizarre to me that anyone would consider Hillary unfit for office once you take her record into account and a more thorough reading of character. In my opinion, she's a remarkable politician whose few faults do not diminish the magnitude of good she accomplished. It doesn't seem reasonable that a person would hate her with the same abject disgust one would feel for Trump. By any reasonable standards standards, she should be palpable for just about anyone imo. But if your opinion differs...very well. Just make sure you're educated on her. That you know the facts and you've put them in perspective. All the good she did along with the bad. If you believe you are educated, take a second look anyway, just in case. Make sure you are 100% on it. If you are aware of all that and still think she falls short, then....okay. Just make sure you actually have an accurate summary of her as a politician.
The second is this: Do not deny the consequences of your choice. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson have no chance of being president. If you're gonna vote for them, it's going to be because, on principle, it's the right thing to do for you to do. And if Trump wins because you wasted votes on a candidate doomed to failure, you will be held partially responsible for the dark times he will bring about. You do this, you are complicit. The demonization and further segregation of immigrants will be on you. The escalation of racism will be on you. A potential second war with the middle east while he tries to stamp out ISIS will be on you. The consequence of a captain going down with their ship is that they die in the water and gain the responsibility for an ended life that could have been saved and all the harm that brings to their loved ones. The consequences of voting your conscious against all practicality is that Trump has that much more of a chance of becoming president and all that that implies.
If you understand and accept both those things, I will not begrudge you for voting how you will, however much I disagree with your choice. I just don't want people to not vote Hillary because they believe in the cartoon carticature of her that the republicans prop up and I do not want to hear people denying their part in allowing Trump to rise to power. The former would be straight up idiocy and the latter would be pure hypocrisy.
It's essentially a question of committing to the principle or to the greatest good? Do you, as the captain, go down with your ship despite there being plenty of room on the life boats for the simple reason that you are a person of principle? For me, this isn't an issue. I support Hillary, so she's both the practical and moral choice for me, but if you dislike Hillary, then I can see how this is an issue. And if you believe....if you truly believe that Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or, god forbid, Donald Trump are the right choices of presidents, then I guess I don't have a right to say that you shouldn't vote.
However, I have 2 suggestions.
The first is this: Make it an educated decision. Make sure your have a thorough understanding of all the candidates. Because it took me a long time, but once I got educated about Hillary, I became truly excited about her, whereas before I was merely voting for her out of resignation because Bernie didn't get it. It is very bizarre to me that anyone would consider Hillary unfit for office once you take her record into account and a more thorough reading of character. In my opinion, she's a remarkable politician whose few faults do not diminish the magnitude of good she accomplished. It doesn't seem reasonable that a person would hate her with the same abject disgust one would feel for Trump. By any reasonable standards standards, she should be palpable for just about anyone imo. But if your opinion differs...very well. Just make sure you're educated on her. That you know the facts and you've put them in perspective. All the good she did along with the bad. If you believe you are educated, take a second look anyway, just in case. Make sure you are 100% on it. If you are aware of all that and still think she falls short, then....okay. Just make sure you actually have an accurate summary of her as a politician.
The second is this: Do not deny the consequences of your choice. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson have no chance of being president. If you're gonna vote for them, it's going to be because, on principle, it's the right thing to do for you to do. And if Trump wins because you wasted votes on a candidate doomed to failure, you will be held partially responsible for the dark times he will bring about. You do this, you are complicit. The demonization and further segregation of immigrants will be on you. The escalation of racism will be on you. A potential second war with the middle east while he tries to stamp out ISIS will be on you. The consequence of a captain going down with their ship is that they die in the water and gain the responsibility for an ended life that could have been saved and all the harm that brings to their loved ones. The consequences of voting your conscious against all practicality is that Trump has that much more of a chance of becoming president and all that that implies.
If you understand and accept both those things, I will not begrudge you for voting how you will, however much I disagree with your choice. I just don't want people to not vote Hillary because they believe in the cartoon carticature of her that the republicans prop up and I do not want to hear people denying their part in allowing Trump to rise to power. The former would be straight up idiocy and the latter would be pure hypocrisy.
But they're voting for the best person! Votes don't count anyway so why does it matter! Bernie had the primaries stolen from him! Jill cares about people! Gary is a good decent man! Donald Trump and Hillary are the same! How dare you try to make someone feel guilty for voting heir conscience! You're part of the establishment!
Thetrin, I agree with you 100%. Folks who want to throw their vote to a candidate that had no shot just because they don't like the only candidate that can stop trump from winning must not have anything to worry about in terms of civil liberties. Precipis snowflakes they are.
benjipwns
Banned
Most of the people here are going to vote for Hillary even through she's pro-drug war, pro-spying, pro-murdering Americans without due process, etc. and has no shot at winning.
No shot at winning? Funny because thanks to her convention she is winning in polls and most pollsters have her with the best chance at winning the election. While polls don't matter much at this stage she has about 800 ways to win in terms of the electoral college and trump has 200. But tell me again how she doesn't have a shot at winning.
So it's not science, but you know for a fact that she will lose?
No shot at the winning? Come the fuck on.
benjipwns
Banned
Okay, I really have no idea what point your trying to make here.
What a lovely troll. A person polling at 3% truly doesn't have a chance in hell. A person leading polls is giranteed to lose? Hilarious.
This is specifically why I'm so critical of USA's first-past-the-post voting system.
Here in Australia, we use Instant-runoff voting, whereby if you vote for a party that when added up accounts for less votes than the two major parties in the electorate, your second preference is then counted, and so on, until your vote ultimately counts for either the winning party, or the runner up party.
It means that I could vote for The Greens in the previous election with utmost confidence because they align with my views far better than the left-wing Labor party does, but I carry the knowledge that should the Greens lose, my vote will ultimately be counted as a Labor vote, so I'm not throwing anything away. A Labor government could then swing further left depending on how many people actually voted for The Greens, so it has real, immediate impact. It takes away any kind of risk or difficult decision-making, and you can freely vote for who you actually want representing you.
Here in Australia, we use Instant-runoff voting, whereby if you vote for a party that when added up accounts for less votes than the two major parties in the electorate, your second preference is then counted, and so on, until your vote ultimately counts for either the winning party, or the runner up party.
It means that I could vote for The Greens in the previous election with utmost confidence because they align with my views far better than the left-wing Labor party does, but I carry the knowledge that should the Greens lose, my vote will ultimately be counted as a Labor vote, so I'm not throwing anything away. A Labor government could then swing further left depending on how many people actually voted for The Greens, so it has real, immediate impact. It takes away any kind of risk or difficult decision-making, and you can freely vote for who you actually want representing you.
I come back and benjipwns just made this entire thread get confusing. What are we talking about now?
Ah, alright, now I understand. This is a troll.
Ah, alright, now I understand. This is a troll.
benjipwns
Banned
Anyone who doesn't vote as The Party demands is a part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Take zher away!
Yes. It's all he does.
benjipwns
Banned
Yeah, it's "all I do."
I already shit all over the notion that The Party owns you and your vote, that you're throwing it away when you vote how you want and all that other authoritarian nonsense starting from my first post in this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=211909722#post211909722
So have plenty of others. And probably better.
People are still coming into the thread accusing others of actively working to destroy the country, nay the very world itself, if they don't support The Party 100% at all times and that people are braindead and special snowflakes and evil if they know that their vote won't decide the outcome so they don't need to follow The Party Stormtroopers demands.
You guys shilling so hard for the powerful getting a slight dent in their vote total is worse than any joke about the fact that fucking Ron White is running for President.
I already shit all over the notion that The Party owns you and your vote, that you're throwing it away when you vote how you want and all that other authoritarian nonsense starting from my first post in this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=211909722#post211909722
So have plenty of others. And probably better.
People are still coming into the thread accusing others of actively working to destroy the country, nay the very world itself, if they don't support The Party 100% at all times and that people are braindead and special snowflakes and evil if they know that their vote won't decide the outcome so they don't need to follow The Party Stormtroopers demands.
You guys shilling so hard for the powerful getting a slight dent in their vote total is worse than any joke about the fact that fucking Ron White is running for President.
If this is a reference to me, then I didn't say this. I said it makes you complicit. If you see a mugging on the street and you walk by without doing anything to stop it, you are complicit in it. I made a point to state that you're vote is your vote, but do not throw it away on the moral high ground and then say that you couldn't do anything to prevent the oncoming disaster should the worst happen. You own that shit or you do what you can to stop trump from coming into power.
benjipwns
Banned
It's not. And, no, you don't.
Short of murdering Donald Trump there's nothing you, as an individual, can do to stop him from becoming President if he is to win the election. The election being an event that can only happen one way and once.
Your claim of power otherwise is dependent on tens of millions of other individual actors being within your control. They aren't.
Don't you know that the people don't vote in the President but rather it's the computer wires or aliens or the Jewish bankers that do? Come on man. Get with the system and stop being part of the war machine aka the DNC.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Wouldn't you only be throwing your vote away in a swing state? I live in Texas which is going to go red, so I can write in Dennis Reynolds the Implicator and it won't be "thrown away". Right?
benjipwns
Banned
Wrong. Hillary's national popular vote total will be one vote lower, which means you actually voted to support Trump's agenda which will unleash its fury upon you like the crashing of a thousand waves.
Trump is untethered and his rage knows no bounds.
Nuh uh. It's not Hillarys that's lower its the Jewish bankers group that's lower. Let's be honest "nudge nudge wink wink"
No shit, a single vote isn't going to make a difference. A presidential election is the decision of a community, not an individual. What individuals do is convince other individuals of particular positions or arguments. You get enough individuals influencing other individuals and you have an influence on the election. That's how it works. You seem to think that unless it's because of your direct influence, you make no difference, but it's how you act within your community. Right now, if people read your posts and we're convinced by this nihilistic bullshit and voted third party like you because of it, you wouldn't be directly in control of their actions, but would still have a had an influence on the election. You don't need to control people for your choice to be meaningful.
And besides, this isn't about actual influence on your part, it's the principle of the thing. Regardless of how little it is, you are not contributing stop a demagogue from taking the Whitehouse. If your stance is based around principles, then one would think it'd be a moral duty to do what you can.
RoninChaos
Member
heliosRAzi
Banned
Aww shit. Sorry Dennis Reynolds, I won't be able to support you in these dire times.
Fixed that for you. The image was missing the relevant click-through link.
benjipwns
Banned
And all this applies to telling someone that if they vote third party or don't vote that they're voting for Trump and throwing their vote away how?
You can't presume that person can or will in any way influence others votes enough to make an identifiable impact on the outcome.
You're simply trying to deceive them into publicly supporting your position out of peer pressure. You'll never know how they actually voted.
I do. I don't vote except as an occasional gag. (Like when I voted for Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente Guerra in the 2016 Michigan Democratic Primary to see if I would be the only one in the precinct to do so. I was the only one to do so in person, somebody else did by absentee.)
RoninChaos
Member
So all the Bernie or bust people are make believe? I had no idea.
Acting like they're any significant chunk of those who liked him or every person who supported Bernie period is more than a bit ridiculous considering the measureable facts. I know you said it's just every Bernie supporter you've talked to and, well, most people who liked Bernie here on Gaf are voting Hillary. I'm sure you're being hyperbolic but it doesn't help the conversation.
Airola
Member
Imagine people 50 years ago, year by year, voting increasingly the persons they want to vote instead of playing a strategy game by voting for someone else. Maybe things would be different now.
Instead of always looking what will happen in the next four years, maybe people should look at what could be after the next 50 years. If people don't do that, then every single election will continue to be the same; people voting for someone else than what they would really want to vote for, and people trying to talk others to vote the way they want to vote.
Nothing will ever change as long as people fall into the strategy bullshit year after year.
Who knows, maybe even right now there are enough people to make the difference. I bet there are so many people voting for both Trump and Hillary only because of this strategy game that if they all voted for the ones they'd really want to vote, maybe some other people would be the ones who'd be fighting for precidency. And even if there wouldn't be that many people, the voting numbers would be drastically different so that maybe the next election, when people have been encouraged to vote differently and seen it starting to bear fruit, or the next election after that would actually be all about real democracy and not this crooked form of democracy.
I'm probably talking out from my ass here, but I won't stop talking out of my ass until I see this tried at least once. Make a change, be the change! Refuse to fall into the bullshit of forced political hivemind strategy game!
The strategy-free vote you vote now isn't a vote for the next four years, but it's a vote for the next 100 years! Popular strategy is only temporary. Own personal choice is for eternity!
Now, excuse me, I go back into hiding as I can already hear the incoming laughter aimed towards every single word I wrote
You may laugh me out of a Neogaf political thread, but you will never laugh me out of my empty but comfortable cave.
Ideally wouldn't this be the best case?
People voting not for a party or because they were influenced by 'what's reasonably the best choice', but for their own beliefs?
If people realized that they could vote for themselves and not ride a party line, wouldn't it be best for the people?
Instead of having to rely on whatever platform the Democrats have chosen, wouldn't it be best for a larger amount of support on a platform that is, for example, more liberal?
I'm farther left-wing than the Democrats tend to be and their platform is the most progressive it has literally ever been.
benjipwns
Banned
~31 million people voted for Hillary and Trump combined in their respective primaries.
~31 million voted for someone else in those primaries or the Libertarian/Green primaries, and that's with most of the Republican candidates dropping out after only three states voted. And many states voting after the winners were already declared. (I've never understood why people bother to go and vote after everyone else drops out. Like California and New Jersey, 2 million people went to vote for Trump, 75-80% of the total.)
Have you been paying attention? Take a look at /r/sandersforpresident and click through to their migration site and tell me with a straight face that busting isn't very two weeks ago. At this point in the proceedings it is hard to see complaining about how Bernie supporters behaved during the primary as much more than the childish whining of a sore winner.
On-topic: I try to avoid bringing "as an x" framing into play. Can't do too much about what other people do.
I think there is a lot more Bernie or bust people than people think. It's enough o to bolster third party numbers and take away votes from both clinton and trump. Especially in an election where every vote counts.
That's a non-statement though.
It's literally as progressive as it is through lots of the major influences of society wanting to be more liberal. And in attempt to assuage everyone that their party represents them.
At the end of the day the Democratic party exists to push a platform that represents their values best.
Cue Bernie being able to sufficiently influence the party as an attempt to bring in voters who rather vote more liberally.
The idea that more and more people subscribe to their own ideology rather than be complacent with the party-line should always feel more liberating as it means less concessions to the status quo.
Imagine people 50 years ago, year by year, voting increasingly the persons they want to vote instead of playing a strategy game by voting for someone else. Maybe things would be different now.
Instead of always looking what will happen in the next four years, maybe people should look at what could be after the next 50 years. If people don't do that, then every single election will continue to be the same; people voting for someone else than what they would really want to vote for, and people trying to talk others to vote the way they want to vote.
Nothing will ever change as long as people fall into the strategy bullshit year after year.
Who knows, maybe even right now there are enough people to make the difference. I bet there are so many people voting for both Trump and Hillary only because of this strategy game that if they all voted for the ones they'd really want to vote, maybe some other people would be the ones who'd be fighting for precidency. And even if there wouldn't be that many people, the voting numbers would be drastically different so that maybe the next election, when people have been encouraged to vote differently and seen it starting to bear fruit, or the next election after that would actually be all about real democracy and not this crooked form of democracy.
I'm probably talking out from my ass here, but I won't stop talking out of my ass until I see this tried at least once. Make a change, be the change! Refuse to fall into the bullshit of forced political hivemind strategy game!
The strategy-free vote you vote now isn't a vote for the next four years, but it's a vote for the next 100 years! Popular strategy is only temporary. Own personal choice is for eternity!
Now, excuse me, I go back into hiding as I can already hear the incoming laughter aimed towards every single word I wrote
You may laugh me out of a Neogaf political thread, but you will never laugh me out of my empty but comfortable cave.
Let me google something really quick.
Reality here is simple. The best case scenario for a 3rd party is to get 1/4th the vote, maybe even a third, they may even get a state or two. If that happens and no one reaches 270, the Republican Majority House and Senate will have to do the job, and since I just said Republican majority, you know that the automatic winner is Donald Trump.
Idealism is nice to have, but until we have people campaigning to remove the 12th Amendment and FPTP it's kinda pointless. Hell, to do that we need a new amendment, which isn't easy.
I wish 3rd parties start campaigning for lower, more local positions, to build a larger base and influence to help get such a thing done. Then again, most of them don't even advocate to amend the Constitution to get rid of that amendment, which is funny considering how much they scream that the system is rigged against them and yet they don't want to amend the very thing that's making the system rigged in the first place. Sad too, I'm rather fond of trying out the STV voting system and I wished there was a candidate who would advocate for it.
- Status