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
![]()
![]()
When all of your candidates are awful, it's a fundamental problem with the system that voting isn't going to fix. You have my sympathies, but stop projecting your country's problems onto ours. It's not helpful.
![]()
Yes, if that candidate cannot, mathematically, win. There's significant evidence that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election, and look where that got us.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:47:21 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Perian-
I'm trying to find a good way of saying this, but that "large doners" accusation is a meaningless bogeyman, especially when there's no specificiation of which doners are meant and what issue one believes their input would affect.
It also doesn't take into account what I think is more important- that just those large doners are rich has nothing to do with their or Clinton's progressive policies in most if not necessary all issues.
I think that Sanders has somehow managed to convince people that his own policy preferences are those of the perfect progressive and that anyone else with different preferences is not a true progressive and I call bullshit.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:51:00 PM by Hodor2
It isn't much as projecting my problems into the US but forcing people to support candidates they don't like doesn't do any good either.
It in the end just creates more ressentiment, which ends up creating more divisions and kinda defeats the whole purpose of having the freedom to decide what to do with your vote.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:50:53 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesI have to disagree then. Voting for a third party, wherever the reason, doesn't hurt or support either candidate if neither was going to get your vote in the first place. Nor does it drop the number of votes in the pool and give other votes more weight, which was one of your arguments.
I can see your point with the Nader example, but I still can't be against someone, at the very least, voting for who they want. Maybe that's naive, or more emotional than practical, but that's where I stand on it. The alternative, rightly or wrongly, stinks too much of the "my way or be a traitor" mentality that makes me dislike politics in a lot of cases.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:55:06 PM by sgamer82
Elections are always a choice between N candidates. Someone is always going to win a seat, no matter how many people stay home. Thus, the argument that "lesser of two evils" leads to bad government is uttely bogus, unless one's mistaken about who is the lesser evil.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanMan, Mc Cain has really dialed up his rhetoric to avoid being knocked out by the team party in the primary. And they still want his skin anyway.
Man should probably retire with some of his dignity intact.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I'm talking about donors that go directly against Clinton's positions, such as fossil fuel (I posted a number a few pages ago, it was about 7 million dollar) and Wall Street donors (probably even more). These are problematic, can we agree with that? I have no issues with, for instance, the Union of Nurses that is apparently backing Sanders.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I am not saying to vote to a third party just because. I am saying that not voting because you don't like the options or voting for someone you think that represents you better than the other candidates shouldn't be a reason to be shamed into voting for someone else.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:55:31 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges![]()
![]()
![]()
Beyond a certain point, the lesser of two evils is so bad that the "correct" choice is to overthrow the government and replace it with one which may or may not be an improvement. The US is nowhere near that point, but we're in the early stages of a major societal transformation, and the American system is extremely rigid.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:57:19 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Perian- How about all of the unions (i.e. AFLCIO and UAW) supporting Clinton and the fact that NARL, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Brady Campaign support her.
I guess I'd consider the fossil fuel one to be slightly problematic. I don't really find meaning in the Wall Street one because there's no real evidence of Clinton being anti-financial reform. Maybe not focused on "breaking the banks" in the way Sanders is, but she's certainly in favor of laws curtailing white collar crime.
And my other main point is that I bet one reason why she has these big downers supporting her, including people on Wall Street (besides her being a known entity) is because those individuals support her on her other policy preferences, such as gay rights and abortion rights.
Edit- Too rude of phrasing I think. My apologies.
edited 16th Jun '16 1:03:27 PM by Hodor2
@AngelusNox I'm not advocating vote third party just 'cause either, if that's directed at me (thread moves so fast it's getting hard to tell). In fact I'm agreeing with a lot of what you've said so far. I feel, better or worse, vote where you feel you should vote and don't let others force or shame you into doing otherwise. Especially not with "you're either with us or against us" logic.
Maybe in context of an election (or at least this election) I'm wrong to think so. But that doesn't change how I feel.
edited 16th Jun '16 1:02:55 PM by sgamer82
If memory serves the Human Rights Campaign endorsement for Hillary has attracted some complaints of cronyism because she's actually (historically) been less supportive for LGBT rights than Sanders. Same for AFL-CIO in light of the free trade agreements and her only recent walkback on TPP/TTIP. Don't know enough to judge the validity of such complaints.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanX-posting from military thread:
Senate Votes to Require Women to Register for the Draft After January 1, 2018
edited 16th Jun '16 1:04:38 PM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
These are no problem. However, that doesn't take the ones that I was talking about away.
Look, it's not about the candidate to me. As I said, I would prefer a situation in which I could happily support Clinton. But I care about things like the environment, and I think these problems account for hard measures, which is why these fossil fuel donors worry me.
About Wall Street: Clinton says that she wants to address income inequality, and I have doubts when a candidate who takes so much money from Wall Street and big banks says that.
EDIT: I don't think people on Wall Street would donate money in such large amounts if the only reason is that they're concerned about gay rights.
edited 16th Jun '16 1:06:19 PM by Perian
![]()
I don't think there's anything Clinton can do even if she wanted to to allay your "suspicions".
And part of why I bring up those other things is not because I'm arguing that those are the main reason for her big donor (can't seem to spell that right) support, but because it illustrates that she's a Progressive Democrat.
And that basically because of your "suspicions" you are willing to allow for the election of Trump, who is awful on all of those issues.
edited 16th Jun '16 1:10:41 PM by Hodor2
![]()
Good to know. I'll stick to philosophical, though. To do otherwise would feel to me like I'm Jumping Off the Slippery Slope too much for my liking. (Not intending to say anyone is, but it's a mentality that I'd prefer to avoid in myself, even if I'm wrong for doing s so).
edited 16th Jun '16 1:12:27 PM by sgamer82
I think the issue with Clinton and Trump is that they both perfectly represent the worst aspects of both political parties respectfully. Clinton is the political insider who the DNC Party Bosses had pretty much chosen to be their nominee for President before even offering her to voters. Donald Trump is a racist, sexist git who cares more about guns than brown people.
edited 16th Jun '16 1:13:35 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food Badly
But if the DNC Party Bosses represent positions that align, in the majority, with the views of progressive Americans, then their "corruption" is an interesting datum that in no way affects the suitability of their candidate to be President.
Heck, you could say that Donald Trump represents the interests of the Republican Party more than the party's insiders do. This has been the case for a while, but it was only in this election cycle that it came out with enough force to unseat the establishment.
The converse, however, is not true on the Democrats' side. Sanders lost the nomination, rather convincingly, and it was fair and square by the popular vote. If he had won, then we might be having a different conversation, but he didn't, and that's that.
edited 16th Jun '16 1:16:38 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!""Don't vote for X is the same as voting for Y" isn't my position, to clarify.
"Not voting for X is basically making it easier for Y to win" is my argument. This isn't so much as a "if you're not with us, you're against us", it's a "it's better to vote in a way that prevents the problem from occurring than not".
Shadow?edited 16th Jun '16 2:19:48 PM by Perian
That Sanders would be able to "get things done" seems to be the sticking point for a lot of people. And you still haven't given any reason beyond "Some rich people donated to her" to think she doesn't care about those things. If you can't back up what you say I don't know what you hope to accomplish.
edited 16th Jun '16 1:29:04 PM by LSBK

@smokeycut I'm talking about the party's ideals, not the party itself. I could care less about the Democratic Party.
edited 16th Jun '16 12:45:13 PM by Perian