Bonfires Down
Member
Maybe some of you who imply that people are racists because they don't want to vote for Hillary should use that space to spread awareness about what a scam the voting system is instead.
-
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.
Stop using my oppression as an argument for your favored candidate
- Thread starter Amibguous Cad
- Start date
- Status
Yep, they are the people that want to get rid of the dmv. Let alone social security and other shit
Cool idea, but it sounds like you need to vote multiple times. Some people can barely go vote once because of their jobs. Kinda speaks volumes on how we treat minimum wage workers doesn't it?
Can't believe people are actually arguing this.
Darryl M R
Member
No one is entitled to your vote, but don't argue that you are making a political statement for the greater good because you can't see that there are only two possible outcomes of this election.
President Clinton or President Trump.
I think one of the biggest reason people aggressively respond to third party voters is because they use that they will not support the lesser of two evils but the greater good. This opens up another argument that the greater good is to not allow the greater of two evils to win.
I don't think anyone would care if someone said "I'm going to vote for Jill. I like her policies and I like her as a person. She's not perfect but who is?"
Whenever I see responses to third-party voters it always because they opened up a conversation about morality. Is it morally good to have other people lose their human rights? Is it morally good to support someone that I fundamentally disagree with even if the results of my actions lead to negative outcomes? I'm not trying to discuss the former question but I would think it is clear how that would be the logical question for someone to ask.
And I think that's what the quote OP added is trying to get to.
President Clinton or President Trump.
I think one of the biggest reason people aggressively respond to third party voters is because they use that they will not support the lesser of two evils but the greater good. This opens up another argument that the greater good is to not allow the greater of two evils to win.
And also then we talk about how silly it is to say Hillary is evil.
I don't think anyone would care if someone said "I'm going to vote for Jill. I like her policies and I like her as a person. She's not perfect but who is?"
Whenever I see responses to third-party voters it always because they opened up a conversation about morality. Is it morally good to have other people lose their human rights? Is it morally good to support someone that I fundamentally disagree with even if the results of my actions lead to negative outcomes? I'm not trying to discuss the former question but I would think it is clear how that would be the logical question for someone to ask.
And I think that's what the quote OP added is trying to get to.
Aaronology
Member
This is a forum. Opinions are shared. No one is being lectured. Do not make an OP or a post advocating a third party vote if you do not want that choice discussed and examined. If you are rubbed the wrong way by the statement of facts and objective analysis then find some bubble on the internet that substitutes reality with your world view and live happily ever after.
PanicFreak
Member
A twenty year smear campaign will do that to people.
That's the distinction between Runoff Voting and Instant Runoff Voting.
Under IRV, you'd just rank the candidates on a single ballot according to preference. If the person who you ranked #1 does not receive a plurality of other #1 votes, your vote shifts to your #2 choice, and so on until someone wins.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Pretty much
The issue that many young voters seem to have is that Obama was the presidential candidate to 'pop their voting cherry'.
And Obama was, by all means, very close to a perfect candidate. The 'change' angle. the overall 'progressive' angle. the 'not from a rich established dynasty of politicians' angle, and of course the 'minority angle'.
Now, we see a lot of people in their late twenties who have a hard time grasping the fact that there's not always going to be a candidate to sweep you off your feet.
For every Kennedy, every Obama there's a ... Jimmy Carter? (???)
Like you say, they also want to remove the government from health care. So medicare, medicaid, social security disability insurance? Libertarians believe that people should be able to opt out of paying taxes into these programs meaning they support defunding them entirely.
They also support deregulation so don't expect the government to step in and say that people with disability can't be randomly dropped from a plan or blocked from getting a new one. Remember, regulation means government intervention which is the devil.
Just because this particular bubble on the internet substitutes reality with your worldview doesn't make it the correct one, dude. Hillary supporters don't have a monopoly on "facts" and "objective analysis". That's some real insidious shit to imply from any side. People are being talked down to and lectured here. Full stop.
Darryl M R
Member
Wait, then is every thread that have people disagreeing with the respective OP a lecture?
When do we switch from conversing to lecturing? OP is responding to posts.
If you could shed some light on this. Since I agree, this is a forum and no one is getting lectured since each individual's voice is being heard.
Crimson_Fate
Member
Voting your conscience is never throwing your vote away. The only people who say this are the ones who want their candidate to win and want to guilt you into voting their way. Its your vote use it any way you like.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Except 30-35% of people don't vote in national elections for various reasons. And we don't have a clear way to understand their preferences.
What is Latinos voted at 99% this year, in Georgia? It could rise to swing state status. Gov Deal has started pushing prison reform, which doesn't seem like part of the typical Republican platform. Gov Deal has to make certain concessions. He opposed those bathroom laws. We have a healthy progressive community with an active LGBT community.
Now, some of these decisions are a direct response to a community and some are indirect. But every vote does count, at least in signaling where the population moving. And if minorities voted at 99%, while other populations where still indifferent, you would see better change at the state and local level. We actually have evidence to prove that voting matters. It's not done vague concept where you are not sure if the outcome. A good percentage of people are staying home under the false premise that their voice doesn't count.
Poor rural voters who support social programs are less likely to vote due to the political bubble in their communities that preach boot strap economics.
The Obama revisionism is so strong right now.
Have you forgotten the years of "where is candidate Obama" articles? It's only after the final midterms of his presidency that he decided to take the gloves off, and people started to like him again.
As a disabled person who relies on the government that's my point. And I am not trying to judge OP and I am not in their shoes so I take at their word they are genuinely Qeer and Disabled.
However considering if trump gets in and that at least at the moment the R has power in the places that get the legislation moving so there may not be gridlock, added in with possible multiple SCOTUS nom's that again can get past vetting that the Dem's could not, combined with who the nom's are heavily favored to be, may not be fixable by a simple presidential vote in four years.
I am not saying this is true, and I am not attacking OP, but you have to have some sort of privilege and stability to assume you can ride out a trump presidency and it long lasting affects over a single issue that's not going to change no matter who's president including the billion to one chance a third party gets in, especially one as extreme as calling for the disbanding of the CIA and charging anyone with any connection starting with presidents as war criminals.
My concern is that a year from now I am not starving on the street because I have to rely on government because my physical issues keep me from ever pulling up by bootstraps literaly or metaphorically.
I will never call out someone for their vote because of their status and how it affects a generalized minority population, but I sure as fuck will if your position ignores my status as an individual and leaves me high and dry.
I think it's more along of lines the OP is making a decision that if enough people do that lean left will actually lose rights if Trump is elected. I don't see any reason why people shouldn't be calling out the risk in their decision
you might totally be right.
But if that's people feel about Obama (by the time of the actual presidential election) right now, that's the standard they're holding HRC against, is it not?
Whether it's factually true or just nostalgic revisionism, doesn't matter all that much, i guess.
Please read the thread. A lot of people advocating for stopping Trump (including myself) arent even living in U.S ! How people can see this as "you just want me to vote for your candidate" is mind boggling.
encephalon
Member
What does voting your conscience mean? Voting who aligns the most with your views? Without any regard who those who will be harmed by the practicalities of the election system? Without regard who, in real terms, will do the most good?
It can be both. It's used as a fear tactic but it's also a mathematical reality of your god awful electoral system.
The whole country's fucked. People are scared shitless. People can't see being against Hillary meaning anything other than wanting or causing a Trump victory. And I certainly can't blame them. That's the liberal cycle. They're stuck in it just as much as the rest of us. We're all oppressed and participating in our own oppression! It's great!
5 pages and I don't think anyone actually touched on the title of the thread...
"Stop using the oppressed to shill for your candidate"
I find it hard to believe that every person online (not just here) who use these tactics, really care about these minority groups, but they throw down their oppression as a cherry on top trump card to drill the guilt to the person they are arguing with. Just another bullet point.
If you actually care about these groups i'm assuming you're doing something to help these people besides using them like a high value card in a game of hearthstone that would win the match.
If you do this, why not look into what you can actually do to help. You will feel a lot better and your words will carry more meaning and weight when making these arguments. Anyone can type a hash tag.
"Stop using the oppressed to shill for your candidate"
I find it hard to believe that every person online (not just here) who use these tactics, really care about these minority groups, but they throw down their oppression as a cherry on top trump card to drill the guilt to the person they are arguing with. Just another bullet point.
If you actually care about these groups i'm assuming you're doing something to help these people besides using them like a high value card in a game of hearthstone that would win the match.
If you do this, why not look into what you can actually do to help. You will feel a lot better and your words will carry more meaning and weight when making these arguments. Anyone can type a hash tag.
So, what I'm getting is that you're mostly voting against Clinton ( for reasons I don't entirely understand )? Might I ask you what positive result you think voting third party would have in this election?
From what I can see, voting third party benefits absolutely nobody while potentially harming everybody.
Neither third party candidate has any chance of winning, so you won't get what you vote for. With how the FPTP voting system works, you will harm the party closest to what you actually agree with, indirectly giving the party you most disagree with more power by voting third party. Not voting for Hillary makes Trump more likely to win the presidency. If Trump wins the presidency, large groups of people will be impacted negatively. Trump will get to put people on the Supreme Court. Trump with a republican congress would likely push through many damaging policies. He would likely undo most of the progress made in the last decade on social issues. Those are not things you can easily undo four years later in the next election. You'd have Mike Pence as VP. You'd have a president who's cozy with Putin. A president who is likely to call for restrictions on freedom of the press because he is so easily offended. A president who thinks the NATO countries should 'pay up' if they want to be protected. A president who advocates for torture and war crimes. A president who makes fun of the disabled, does not care for LGBT rights, and wants to ban an entire religion. A president who thinks climate change is a hoax. Etc.
How can you look at that and think 'instead of making sure this lunatic does not win, I'll make it more likely for him to win by voting third party'? I don't think you quite realise what is at stake here. Do you want the democratic party platform to change? You won't get them to change by leaving them and essentially voting against them. What positive effect are you hoping to achieve by voting third party, and is that effect really worth potentially helping elect a total lunatic such as Trump who would reverse years of progress?
Voting third party helps Trump win. A Trump presidency means undoing progress that has been made and crippling future attempts to revive that progress. If you are willing to potentially help Trump win the presidency purely for selfish and completely symbolic reasons, then that's fine. It's your vote, and nobody can tell you what to do with it. However, you shouldn't ignore that all you are doing is helping Trump win, and you don't get to blame people for calling you out on that.
From what I can see, voting third party benefits absolutely nobody while potentially harming everybody.
Neither third party candidate has any chance of winning, so you won't get what you vote for. With how the FPTP voting system works, you will harm the party closest to what you actually agree with, indirectly giving the party you most disagree with more power by voting third party. Not voting for Hillary makes Trump more likely to win the presidency. If Trump wins the presidency, large groups of people will be impacted negatively. Trump will get to put people on the Supreme Court. Trump with a republican congress would likely push through many damaging policies. He would likely undo most of the progress made in the last decade on social issues. Those are not things you can easily undo four years later in the next election. You'd have Mike Pence as VP. You'd have a president who's cozy with Putin. A president who is likely to call for restrictions on freedom of the press because he is so easily offended. A president who thinks the NATO countries should 'pay up' if they want to be protected. A president who advocates for torture and war crimes. A president who makes fun of the disabled, does not care for LGBT rights, and wants to ban an entire religion. A president who thinks climate change is a hoax. Etc.
How can you look at that and think 'instead of making sure this lunatic does not win, I'll make it more likely for him to win by voting third party'? I don't think you quite realise what is at stake here. Do you want the democratic party platform to change? You won't get them to change by leaving them and essentially voting against them. What positive effect are you hoping to achieve by voting third party, and is that effect really worth potentially helping elect a total lunatic such as Trump who would reverse years of progress?
Voting third party helps Trump win. A Trump presidency means undoing progress that has been made and crippling future attempts to revive that progress. If you are willing to potentially help Trump win the presidency purely for selfish and completely symbolic reasons, then that's fine. It's your vote, and nobody can tell you what to do with it. However, you shouldn't ignore that all you are doing is helping Trump win, and you don't get to blame people for calling you out on that.
PaulExcellent
Member
This is the one time where everyone should swallow your pride and vote for the least terrible candidate. And it's pretty clear which is which.
You can not want them to become president, but dammit people, math only works one way. Yes, at this point, voting for a third party DOES help Trump. Would you rather have him? Or someone who, while not ideal, won't spout shit and work towards LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU STAND FOR.
You can not want them to become president, but dammit people, math only works one way. Yes, at this point, voting for a third party DOES help Trump. Would you rather have him? Or someone who, while not ideal, won't spout shit and work towards LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU STAND FOR.
I think people are just saying don't vote against your own interests here.
See eg Brexit farmer thread.
eBay Huckster
Member
mostly i just see posts like the OP's (where ironically they shame you for holding an opinion strong enough to feel a certain way, while simultaneously acting like the people who make the overwhelming-majority calculations in the electoral calculus are the ones with a monopoly on shame) and think
so you're gonna just sanctimoniously say you're voting your conscience, as if to imply that at least some of us who have not reached the same conclusion are not doing so? and you're doing this to support the candidate who, in literally every way other than what you've named, will do everything to remove the trending-toward-welcoming environment, the few victories we've won over the course of decades, the social programs that so many people like us rely on just to stay afloat let alone thrive in this country?
because i am very much deaf and very much queer and i'd very much rather this OP didn't speak for me
Hippo_PRIME
Member
I understand the idealism behind a protest vote, but I also think that kind of idealism is extremely dangerous, especially in this election. The two party system sucks, it really does. That said, 2016 may be the most important election in US history.
The US is coming off eight years of a damn smart President who, in spite of of a GOP Congress that can only say "No", got some amazing work done. Most obviously, the first steps have been taken towards fixing America's horrifying health care system.
This election will, most importantly, determine the make up of the Supreme Court for decades to come. There are almost certainly two vacancies the next President will fill (Scalia for sure, Ginsburg probably). Many analysts are saying a third vacancy is likely in the next four to eight years. A protest vote in this election is a vote with no say in the future of the judicial body that shapes American law.
Obamacare (I love the term, give the man credit!), marriage equality, campaign finance reform, abortion rights all have their future in question right now. I am about as progressive as they come, but even if another person isn't, I would still encourage them to vote for a candidate (Trump) who actually stands a chance of influencing the Supreme Court because that is the only way to represent their interests in this election.
Any election where the future of the Supreme Court for the next 20+ years isn't in question is a great time to let your displeasure with the two parties be known. What voters don't seem to get is that 2016 is the year to vote for SCOTUS, not POTUS.
The US is coming off eight years of a damn smart President who, in spite of of a GOP Congress that can only say "No", got some amazing work done. Most obviously, the first steps have been taken towards fixing America's horrifying health care system.
This election will, most importantly, determine the make up of the Supreme Court for decades to come. There are almost certainly two vacancies the next President will fill (Scalia for sure, Ginsburg probably). Many analysts are saying a third vacancy is likely in the next four to eight years. A protest vote in this election is a vote with no say in the future of the judicial body that shapes American law.
Obamacare (I love the term, give the man credit!), marriage equality, campaign finance reform, abortion rights all have their future in question right now. I am about as progressive as they come, but even if another person isn't, I would still encourage them to vote for a candidate (Trump) who actually stands a chance of influencing the Supreme Court because that is the only way to represent their interests in this election.
Any election where the future of the Supreme Court for the next 20+ years isn't in question is a great time to let your displeasure with the two parties be known. What voters don't seem to get is that 2016 is the year to vote for SCOTUS, not POTUS.
You're effectively giving your vote to trump, a "proto fascist" in your own words. I'm really confused as to how Trump winning would change the political landscape for the better? It's not going to send the message you think it would send and the fallout would not be worth it. You can't blame anyone but yourself.
This makes no sense
It depends entirely on where the vote is being taken from and the state it's ocurring in. People voting Gary Johnson will probably suck away more votes from Trump than they would Hillary, and the reverse for Stein.
Already Torn
Banned
Yeah, I guess some people here dont see how ironic their posts are.
to be fair, OP wrote "using my oppression" ... which is a weird way to put it, seeing as there are countless of LGBT people as well as disabled people who are gladly using those aspects of their lives as an argument for any specific candidate.
"my oppression" ... :/
Sure it does, in our country we have a choice, which is a lot more than I can say for other countries out there. If this person wants to vote Johnson, let them, if OP posted this on a right leaning message board people will be saying "a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary"
End of the day, what we do in the voting both is private, to prevent people from being publicly shamed for not voting the way other people voted.
It's their choice, their life, their beliefs
You can insult them and berate them into voting for your candidate, but truthfully, doing that will probably ensure they will never vote for who you want.
Yeah I cant even take OP seriously when they use language like that, all I see is alt right. He doesnt care about anyone but himself and thinks hes righteous in their logic for voting like its some godsend. its total delusion.
I'm not insulting or berating. I think people are just trying to make a reasonable case why voting in such a way actually hurts your own interests. That's all.
No what people will be doing if they deny one candidate 270 electoral votes then the people are hand over their vote to the House to decide for them.
The Republicans currently control the House, so in effect sending a message by voting third part is voting for Trump/Republicans.
Ok....you're correct, but at the same time I think my point still stands, we all know those people that you want to tell to chill the fuck out, I dont need you speaking for me or acting like you're affected by my oppression at all.
You might not be, but others are. I'm voting Johnson, I made that very well known here. I believe we need 3rd parties in the future and we will never get to that point if we just give up and vote for the left or right and not get them to the point where they be considered relevant on the political field.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I think people are allowed, in support of any candidate, to meaningfully connect policies that are important to them to their candidate of choice, including through emotional appeals. I think other people, who disagree, can contest those arguments on the basis that either other issues are also relevant or that they disagree with the appraisal of where the candidates stand on the issues.
In other words, I have no idea why the title and OP are framed as a meta-argument about the bounds of acceptable arguments, rather than as the far more reasonable position of simply disagreeing with the premise.
Moreover, when you use a #NotYourShield argument, you do two things: first, you implicitly make yourself someone's shield. Second, you essentially speak for others in saying they do not represent your group. It's fine that OP does not connect his/her LBGT or dis/ability perspective to votes in this way, but actually in point of fact many LBGT and/or dis/abled persons do connect their perspectives to their votes in this way. They are not using "your" oppression as an argument, they are using their perspective as an argument.
In other words, I have no idea why the title and OP are framed as a meta-argument about the bounds of acceptable arguments, rather than as the far more reasonable position of simply disagreeing with the premise.
Moreover, when you use a #NotYourShield argument, you do two things: first, you implicitly make yourself someone's shield. Second, you essentially speak for others in saying they do not represent your group. It's fine that OP does not connect his/her LBGT or dis/ability perspective to votes in this way, but actually in point of fact many LBGT and/or dis/abled persons do connect their perspectives to their votes in this way. They are not using "your" oppression as an argument, they are using their perspective as an argument.
You are brave for making this thread.
As I'm sure you're well aware of, if you fall into a minortiy group, the you're expected vote & think a certain way. Otherwise, you're a traitor.
No one hates you more than yourself on the other side.
SaviourMK2
Member
Im not voting for Hillary because I like her. On the contrary, I think shes way too into the political game to really trust to take the moral highroad, but thats my opinion. But I want to trust Hillary because I cannot trust Trump.
You can vote for Johnson if you want, but to ME, in this election (with the Supreme Court vacancy, social security, international standing, medicaid, women's rights, minority rights (stop and frisk, arming police to the teeth), the threat of war crimes, and the fact that Trump isnt even going to do the job, only take the glory, all of that on the line), a vote for Johnson tells me you're more concerned with your ideals than you are the betterment of your fellow neighbors.
But again, thats me, you probably don't care how I feel about you. If it was any normal election, Obama vs Romney, Clinton vs Dole, Bush vs Clinton, etc, I would say stick to your guns and try to make a difference.
But this is not the year for ideals, this is the year where the country needs to be reminded that people like Trump will never be accepted.
You can vote for Johnson if you want, but to ME, in this election (with the Supreme Court vacancy, social security, international standing, medicaid, women's rights, minority rights (stop and frisk, arming police to the teeth), the threat of war crimes, and the fact that Trump isnt even going to do the job, only take the glory, all of that on the line), a vote for Johnson tells me you're more concerned with your ideals than you are the betterment of your fellow neighbors.
But again, thats me, you probably don't care how I feel about you. If it was any normal election, Obama vs Romney, Clinton vs Dole, Bush vs Clinton, etc, I would say stick to your guns and try to make a difference.
But this is not the year for ideals, this is the year where the country needs to be reminded that people like Trump will never be accepted.
You are however voting for a VP that really, really, really loves the 'good work' the CIA did in Iran.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll