Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
It's not mathematically equivalent, but the point is that you're better off voting for the person you dislike less than you are not voting.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Even that. Just vote for an actual person in the running, namely, vote for the opposite of the one you want to lose. You don't want Trump to win? Vote for Hillary. And vice versa.
That's the only effective way to keep the candidate you want out. Sometimes you gotta vote for the less bad option to prevent a terrible future.
Shadow?Eh, if Sanders had won, people would be saying the same thing. "Staying home and not voting for Sanders might as well be a vote for Trump!"
Same. My BFF and I were homeless for the duration of 2015. When we did have a roof over our heads, it was at a hotel that wasn't one step removed from anything; it was a meth house. The stairwell reeked of urine, there were hookers and drug dealers on just about every floor and bedbugs if you went too far up. Our room was robbed twice, both times while I was at work and she was alone in the place.
Sure, maybe a gun would have helped. We might still have our PS 3 if she'd been armed. But an assault rifle would have been too far the other direction, especially because there are politics to consider in a situation like that.
'cause, see, maybe we would still have our PS 3 if she'd shot and killed our robber. Or maybe we'd have less, because people like that have friends. I don't know. I do know that a weapon strong enough to spray a few bullets through walls and kill some of the other tenants probably wouldn't have contributed anything positive to the question.
edited 16th Jun '16 11:05:19 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I really don't see that. A person who doesn't want Trump or Clinton is entitled to use their vote in a third party or (though I personally disapprove) even waste it by not using it at all.
If a person was never going to vote for Clinton or Trump (ex: Bernie fanatics who, rightly or wrongly, see Clinton as just as bad as Trump) then their using their vote in such a way affects literally nothing.
Only someone who has previously been committed to voting one way and then changed their mind really fits the "not voting for X is voting for Y" logic to me, since that really is a vote lost that could've gone toward X's victory.
edited 16th Jun '16 11:09:36 AM by sgamer82
If you dislike both of them exactly equally, then sure, vote for a protest candidate or don't vote at all (by which I mean don't fill in that part of your ballot — you should still show up to vote in down-ticket races). But if you have any preference at all, even if it's just for (in your eyes) the lesser of two evils, then your interests are better served by holding your nose and voting for them than they are by not voting at all.
The problem is that you're trying to turn a snappy catchphrase into a literal truth. No, voting for Candidate A is not literally the same as voting for Candidate 1. But the sentiment — that you should vote for your preference even if you don't like them, you just like the other guy less — is accurate.
edited 16th Jun '16 11:11:21 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.If you would prefer Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, then by all means cast your vote as you believe. I happen to think it's foolish, but that doesn't mean I'll try to stop you. Mathematics rarely convinces someone to give up an emotional position. Or, as was said, leave the Presidential vote blank and support the down-ticket candidates that you prefer, because we desperately need to unseat the Republican stranglehold on state and local politics, lest every state turn into Kansas or Louisiana.
Here's the thing though: whether you prefer Sanders or Clinton, there is no escaping the stark differences between the Republican and Democratic platforms, especially with Trump in charge of the former. No matter how you interpret the data or cling to fake scandals, Clinton's ideology is much closer to what a progressive would hope for than anything offered by candidates in the other party. A vote for her is a vote to keep the country headed left — even if it's more slowly than you might like — as opposed to taking a giant leap in the other direction.
Now, if you are an "accelerationist" — a person who believes that the system needs to be run to its destruction in order to foment a genuine revolution — then, well, okay. Do what you will. I violently disagree with you, but you have the right to hold that opinion.
Edit: Lest anyone accuse me of hypocrisy, I would have gladly voted for Sanders in November had he won the primary. But he didn't, and it's time to move on.
edited 16th Jun '16 11:18:48 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"There's not enough 3rd party votes to have ever won an election. Staying home does nothing.
You're not helping, but actually are hurting at that point. There's only two viable candidates. The one that is a problem(in this case, Trump), does better if you don't vote for Hillary. It doesn't matter whether you vote for someone else or not vote at all. You're still giving one less key vote against Trump. Too many people do this already, which adds up. One person not doing it(which isn't ever reality) is fine. But when it adds up, you essentially have a candidate that isn't happening(the 3rd party), a good candidate that didn't have enough votes because you avoided voting for them(Hillary is this example), and a bad candidate who didn't have enough votes against them, which gives them a far more likely chance to win(hence, Trump).
Regardless of your opinion on who is good or bad, but the point of the examples is to show how ineffective voting for a 3rd party or not voting at all is in reality.
Shadow?
I suppose I can follow that. I still don't entirely agree with it, and will not hold someone voting their conscience against them the way I feel that sentiment inherently does. Even if, yes, that does do something like put Trump in office.
I've said before I'm voting Hillary because she's the most competent seeming candidate in this race, and would've had no major issue with Sanders. I won't hold it against someone who feels they can't vote for her in good faith, nor would I hold a grudge for someone who whole heartedly supports Trump (though, hypocritical as it might be, I imagine I'd have issues with such a person for a host of other reasons)
edited 16th Jun '16 11:28:15 AM by sgamer82
![]()
![]()
The thing about scaring people into voting against Trump is that 1) it won't bind voters to your candidate, and if in 4 years someone likes Kasich comes along, Clinton will just lose these voters again and 2) it encourages people to come up with reasons why Trump is not that bad, e.g. things like "his racism is just pandering to his voters" or "he won't get any of his crazy ideas accomplished anyway" (I've heard both of them).
Also, many people would disagree with you that there isn't much difference between Sanders and Clinton. It involves, for instance, Sanders not taking lobby money from sectors he opposes to finance his campaign? 'Running the system to its destruction' is not what Sanders voters (or at least, the majority of them) want. They simply want someone in the White House who can get things done, without being indebted to their donors.
edited 16th Jun '16 11:36:32 AM by Perian
@Tobias Drake
I've seen you talk about that before. It might not mean much but you have my sincere sympathies.
In our case the place honestly didn't seem that bad when we moved in. Then everybody else moved in after us. We had a wifebeater in the apartment below us. We had the pothead across the hall (and while I don't care what people do to their own brains I really object to them trying to take mine down with them). We had a woman who didn't live in the building, but regularly visited one of the guys who did, and I've never figured out if she was on a lot of drugs or needed to be (maybe both) but either way she liked to spend all her time wandering the halls, screaming, and occasionally trying to force her way into the rooms. We had a hooker—who to give credit where it's due, at least sent her kids to her mother's when she was working—a few doors over. Worse yet we had an unsecured front door that meant every nutjob off the street could wander in as he pleased.
No one ever actually got in, but we had a really bad call one night at four. Guy was drunk, stoned, and potentially a few other things, and he kept trying to break down our door (and every door in the hallway at that). That's when I ended up behind the door with a cleaver while my fiancee called the police. I don't think either of us slept for a week, and we decided shortly afterwards to move since paying nine hundred bucks a month for the privilege of dealing with this BS didn't seem worth it.
Maybe if we'd had a gun we'd have felt safer. I don't know. I do know that if I ever do buy a gun though, I'm not going to be disappointed that the gun used in Orlando is unavailable to me.
![]()
Did I say "there is no difference between Sanders and Clinton?" No, I did not. Politics is about compromise, not getting your way all the time. Do enough of that and you turn into the Tea Party. We've had eight years of no-compromise politics and look where we are. No, thank you.
Trump should scare the hell out of you. If he doesn't, you are living in some kind of fantasy land. About the only mitigating factor is that our system of checks and balances should prevent him from accomplishing most of what he's said he wants to, but that is hardly an argument in his favor.
If 2020 rolls around and Clinton has backed out on her promises, or has pivoted rightward and started becoming an austerity hawk, or something equally improbable, then you can gloat and say, "I told you so," as much as you want, then see if a primary challenge will do any good. Knock yourself out. But will you concede the converse situation, and apologize if she does what we hope she will? If not, you're arguing in bad faith.
edited 16th Jun '16 11:37:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm probably going to vote Libertarian. I'd like a Republican in the white house, but Trump is the worst. Having said that, I like Hillary enough that I kind of hope she wins.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
![]()
You said "there is not much difference", and many people, including me, would argue that that's a crucial point of difference.
Also, I obviously think that Trump is far worse than Clinton. I'm just parroting what I have heard people say, not saying that they're being rational about it. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't reach out to them, however.
And yes: if Clinton somehow becomes a truly progressive president, I will gladly admit that I was wrong. But I'm sceptical about it. Don't you think that I would gladly prefer this to be the case, that I could support the Democratic nominee? I'm not arguing just for the sake of arguing.
edited 16th Jun '16 11:46:46 AM by Perian
When he says "not much difference", it's that voting Hillary or Sanders(who are both democratic) ends up with a far better country than voting Trump does.
The vote may be among two fairly unique people, but in the end, it gives us a better country. Which of the two you would choose between Sanders or Hillary in the end isn't as important as making sure you vote one of them so Trump doesn't win.
I admit it's kind of an odd statement.
Shadow?

I don't even...