The Dems & the GOP - Peas in a pod, again

[Papageorgio]

That's fine. I consider voting strategically, as you suggest, to be a cowardly sellout.

And that opinion is silly and misguided, for precisely the reasons i have already stated. Your protest vote or non vote was by far the more cowardly copout. And it's not even close. Furthermore, it's not just cowardly, but also very stupid, as you essentially cast a vote for the one of the only two possible winners you least preferred.

And voting for the candidate i prefer is not "strategic"....poor use of the word by you.

So you wasted your vote? Your guy didn't win.

Not for me, I went with a candidate that I felt was a good candidate that would represent my views and my country well.

Cool! But you actually voted for the one of the two candidates you least preferred, between Hillary and trump. So, clearly, of the two of us, it is you who compromised himself.

My third party vote is just as important as any other vote. Those that have voted third party can change elections. Had Stein not run Clinton would have probably won Wisconsin and Michigan. Had Ralph Nader not run in 2000, Gore would have won Florida in 2000 and the election. Ross Perot, running handed Clinton a victory in 1992. Roosevelt helped Wilson win over Taft.

When ever third party candidates garner over 5% of the vote, it usually means the incumbent party will lose. Play whatever game you want, voting third party influences elections.

 

[Olde Europe]

Those on the right would say that the tea party contributed a lot in the way of ideas and debate.

Yeah, racism, xenophobia, gold buggery, balanced budget crankery, austerity for those on the lower rungs, anti-PC bigotry, and the most scathing opposition to helping those under water with their mortgage, oh, and letting the banking system collapse, because a modern economy works best without banks. Climate change denialingdongs. Did I forget something? Aw, yes, "Get your filthy government fingers off my Medicare!"

Yep, "ideas". Or rather, a load. The Kochs trained their doggies well, and they were so simple-minded and bigoted, they destroyed Ryan's speakership.

You know, goofy, the Tea Party cankery and the shiploads of bullshit they injected into the national debate more than anything else prepared the nation for the rise of Trump, the biggest domestic political catastrophe since the murder of Lincoln.

Ideas, my arse. Shipping the nation back into the 18th century now runs under the banner of "ideas". Are you sure you thought that through?

 

[Olde Europe]

You could try and hide your circular logic with at least one more step...

Good one!

How about this:

If I vote Bernie, he can't win.

Even if I convince 10k folks to vote for Bernie, he still can't win.

Even if I convince 100k folks to vote for Bernie - though I don't have that kind of influence, and neither does anyone else - even then he still can't win.

I ain't gonna vote for ______ (insert name of hopeless candidate at your convenience)!

 

[Papageorgio]

You could try and hide your circular logic with at least one more step...

Good one!

How about this:

If I vote Bernie, he can't win.

Even if I convince 10k folks to vote for Bernie, he still can't win.

Even if I convince 100k folks to vote for Bernie - though I don't have that kind of influence, and neither does anyone else - even then he still can't win.

I ain't gonna vote for ______ (insert name of hopeless candidate at your convenience)!

LOL! Flew right over your head didn't it?

 

[Tehon]

Even if I convince 100k folks to vote for Bernie - though I don't have that kind of influence, and neither does anyone else - even then he still can't win.

I've heard it rumored that there is one man with that kind of influence.

 

[FA_Q2]

You could try and hide your circular logic with at least one more step...

Good one!

How about this:

If I vote Bernie, he can't win.

Even if I convince 10k folks to vote for Bernie, he still can't win.

Even if I convince 100k folks to vote for Bernie - though I don't have that kind of influence, and neither does anyone else - even then he still can't win.

I ain't gonna vote for ______ (insert name of hopeless candidate at your convenience)!

LOL! Flew right over your head didn't it?

LOL.
Yes it clearly did.

 

[FA_Q2]

Those on the right would say that the tea party contributed a lot in the way of ideas and debate.

Yeah, racism, xenophobia, gold buggery, balanced budget crankery, austerity for those on the lower rungs, anti-PC bigotry, and the most scathing opposition to helping those under water with their mortgage, oh, and letting the banking system collapse, because a modern economy works best without banks. Climate change denialingdongs. Did I forget something? Aw, yes, "Get your filthy government fingers off my Medicare!"

Yep, "ideas". Or rather, a load. The Kochs trained their doggies well, and they were so simple-minded and bigoted, they destroyed Ryan's speakership.

You know, goofy, the Tea Party cankery and the shiploads of bullshit they injected into the national debate more than anything else prepared the nation for the rise of Trump, the biggest domestic political catastrophe since the murder of Lincoln.

Ideas, my arse. Shipping the nation back into the 18th century now runs under the banner of "ideas". Are you sure you thought that through?

One of the most obvious indications of partisan hackery is the need to label the other side in hateful rhetoric. It is clear that you have not a single clue as to what the tea party and its constituents stood for.

It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation or even work with people you do not agree with when all they can see is racist or xenophobe.

 

[Olde Europe]

It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation or even work with people you do not agree with when all they can see is racist or xenophobe.

Yeah, racism, xenophobia, (1) gold buggery, (2) balanced budget crankery, (3) austerity for those on the lower rungs, (4) anti-PC bigotry, and (5) the most scathing opposition to helping those under water with their mortgage, oh, and (6) letting the banking system collapse, because a modern economy works best without banks. (7) Climate change denialingdongs. Did I forget something? Aw, yes, (8) "Get your filthy government fingers off my Medicare!"

It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation or even work with people who are lying their flabby arses off for no reason at all. Even less with those who deny the racism and xenophobia within their ranks, or demand it be ignored.

 

[Papageorgio]

It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation or even work with people you do not agree with when all they can see is racist or xenophobe.

Yeah, racism, xenophobia, (1) gold buggery, (2) balanced budget crankery, (3) austerity for those on the lower rungs, (4) anti-PC bigotry, and (5) the most scathing opposition to helping those under water with their mortgage, oh, and (6) letting the banking system collapse, because a modern economy works best without banks. (7) Climate change denialingdongs. Did I forget something? Aw, yes, (8) "Get your filthy government fingers off my Medicare!"

It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation or even work with people who are lying their flabby arses off for no reason at all. Even less with those who deny the racism and xenophobia within their ranks, or demand it be ignored.

That's why I pretty much ignore you.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation or even work with people you do not agree with when all they can see is racist or xenophobe.

Yeah, racism, xenophobia, (1) gold buggery, (2) balanced budget crankery, (3) austerity for those on the lower rungs, (4) anti-PC bigotry, and (5) the most scathing opposition to helping those under water with their mortgage, oh, and (6) letting the banking system collapse, because a modern economy works best without banks. (7) Climate change denialingdongs. Did I forget something? Aw, yes, (8) "Get your filthy government fingers off my Medicare!"

It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation or even work with people who are lying their flabby arses off for no reason at all. Even less with those who deny the racism and xenophobia within their ranks, or demand it be ignored.

That's why I pretty much ignore you.

LOL.

It is sad to come across one of the intelligent hacks here. It is rare to have a brain AND be willfully ignorant. Usually those two do not go together.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not for me, I went with a candidate that I felt was a good candidate that would represent my views and my country well.

Cool! But you actually voted for the one of the two candidates you least preferred, between Hillary and trump. So, clearly, of the two of us, it is you who compromised himself.

You could try and hide your circular logic with at least one more step...

Sorry,but you are not making your point. Bernie never stood a chance in the primaries,because he didn't have enough voter support, not because people didn't think he could win the primary.. And what I am saying doesn't apply to the primaries anyway. So your meme is a red herring.

Furthermore, I have the evidence that is every single election for almost 100 years on my side. I dont have to use circular logic, i can defer to the evidence. Your third party candidate is not going to win. Not ever, in this system. You seem only to have one point at your disposal: that this is because people think they cant win. Well,when you get a note from 40 million people who , for instance, did not vote for Ralph nader last time, stating they did not vote for him because they thought he couldnt win, you might have a point. Until then (which is forever), you don't.

You guys are going to have to come to terms with a few simple facts: in the sustem we have, only two possible winners emerge in the presidential election. And, if you dont vote for one of them, you are equivalently casting a vote for the one you least prefer.

No, 1000 memes won't save you from this fact.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not for me, I went with a candidate that I felt was a good candidate that would represent my views and my country well.

Cool! But you actually voted for the one of the two candidates you least preferred, between Hillary and trump. So, clearly, of the two of us, it is you who compromised himself.

You could try and hide your circular logic with at least one more step...

Sorry,but you are not making your point. Bernie never stood a chance in the primaries,because he didn't have enough voter support, not because people didn't think he could win the primary.. And what I am saying doesn't apply to the primaries anyway. So your meme is a red herring.

Furthermore, I have the evidence that is every single election for almost 100 years on my side. I dont have to use circular logic, i can defer to the evidence. Your third party candidate is not going to win. Not ever, in this system. You seem only to have one point at your disposal: that this is because people think they cant win. Well,when you get a note from 40 million people who , for instance, did not vote for Ralph nader last time, stating they did not vote for him because they thought he couldnt win, you might have a point. Until then (which is forever), you don't.

You guys are going to have to come to terms with a few simple facts: in the sustem we have, only two possible winners emerge in the presidential election. And, if you dont vote for one of them, you are equjvalently casting a vote for the one you least preger.

No, 1000 memes won't save you from this.

I only need one:

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not for me, I went with a candidate that I felt was a good candidate that would represent my views and my country well.

Cool! But you actually voted for the one of the two candidates you least preferred, between Hillary and trump. So, clearly, of the two of us, it is you who compromised himself.

You could try and hide your circular logic with at least one more step...

Sorry,but you are not making your point. Bernie never stood a chance in the primaries,because he didn't have enough voter support, not because people didn't think he could win the primary.. And what I am saying doesn't apply to the primaries anyway. So your meme is a red herring.

Furthermore, I have the evidence that is every single election for almost 100 years on my side. I dont have to use circular logic, i can defer to the evidence. Your third party candidate is not going to win. Not ever, in this system. You seem only to have one point at your disposal: that this is because people think they cant win. Well,when you get a note from 40 million people who , for instance, did not vote for Ralph nader last time, stating they did not vote for him because they thought he couldnt win, you might have a point. Until then (which is forever), you don't.

You guys are going to have to come to terms with a few simple facts: in the sustem we have, only two possible winners emerge in the presidential election. And, if you dont vote for one of them, you are equjvalently casting a vote for the one you least preger.

No, 1000 memes won't save you from this.

I only need one:

Adolescent copout. Not compelling.

 

[Olde Europe]

Even if I convince 100k folks to vote for Bernie - though I don't have that kind of influence, and neither does anyone else - even then he still can't win.

I've heard it rumored that there is one man with that kind of influence.

Yep, interesting question. I have see no one confident enough to put up a figure. Did you see one? I mean, rumors are fine, but...

Let's, for the sake of the argument, assume Putin actually changed 100k voters in 2016. He had decades-long previous work to rely on, smearing Hillary with every lie one might think of, including rumors she murdered folks. Folks were already widely prepared to believe whatever filth was thrown at her. The same might not be true with less-known, hopeless candidates without Hillary's baggage, and thus the figure might be way lower in their case, following the general rule that you can't convince folks of anything unless they are already prepared or inclined to believe them beforehand.

But then, the whole point of my exercise was to demonstrate that declining to vote for hopeless candidates isn't necessarily an exercise in circular logic.

 

[Olde Europe]

You guys are going to have to come to terms with a few simple facts: in the sustem we have, only two possible winners emerge in the presidential election. And, if you dont vote for one of them, you are equivalently casting a vote for the one you least prefer.

You keep repeating that, and even assert it's a fact. Perot should give you pause. There is no telling where he would have ended up had he not been such a crank, and such an incompetent campaign organizer. With support for the major parties in decline, and affiliation with them more and more tenuous, a better candidate with the right personality and truckloads of cash might well pull it off.

Moreover, a vote for a "hopeless" candidate (a 0.05% chance-of-winning candidate is hopeless, but his chance of winning is still not zero), does not add a vote to any of the major candidates. At most you can say, those doing that fail to add a vote to the candidate they reject somewhat less vigorously. That's not the same, quite obviously, as a vote for the other one.

 

[dblack]

That's fine. I consider voting strategically, as you suggest, to be a cowardly sellout.

And that opinion is silly and misguided, for precisely the reasons i have already stated. Your protest vote or non vote was by far the more cowardly copout. And it's not even close. Furthermore, it's not just cowardly, but also very stupid, as you essentially cast a vote for the one of the only two possible winners you least preferred.

I don't prefer either. They're both horrible. What don't you get about that???

This is the standard plea offered up by partisans who, notably, have little else to offer. "But the other guy!!!". Get a life. Get a party. And quit blaming others for your sellout.

 

[Tehon]

Even if I convince 100k folks to vote for Bernie - though I don't have that kind of influence, and neither does anyone else - even then he still can't win.

I've heard it rumored that there is one man with that kind of influence.

Yep, interesting question. I have see no one confident enough to put up a figure. Did you see one? I mean, rumors are fine, but...

Let's, for the sake of the argument, assume Putin actually changed 100k voters in 2016. He had decades-long previous work to rely on, smearing Hillary with every lie one might think of, including rumors she murdered folks. Folks were already widely prepared to believe whatever filth was thrown at her. The same might not be true with less-known, hopeless candidates without Hillary's baggage, and thus the figure might be way lower in their case, following the general rule that you can't convince folks of anything unless they are already prepared or inclined to believe them beforehand.

But then, the whole point of my exercise was to demonstrate that declining to vote for hopeless candidates isn't necessarily an exercise in circular logic.

I was just playing.
I don't subscribe to that conspiracy theory.

 

[Tehon]

The Paul Ryan Syndrome, playing out in the other party: Tensions Between Pelosi and Progressive Democrats of ‘the Squad’ Burst Into Flame

Too funny. Peas in a pod.

It should be pointed out that the premise of this thread stands in contradiction to the premise of another thread wherein you seek to call out people who believe the Democratic Party has not clearly moved left.

 

[Mac1958]

That's fine. I consider voting strategically, as you suggest, to be a cowardly sellout.

And that opinion is silly and misguided, for precisely the reasons i have already stated. Your protest vote or non vote was by far the more cowardly copout. And it's not even close. Furthermore, it's not just cowardly, but also very stupid, as you essentially cast a vote for the one of the only two possible winners you least preferred.

I don't prefer either. They're both horrible. What don't you get about that???

This is the standard plea offered up by partisans who, notably, have little else to offer. "But the other guy!!!". Get a life. Get a party. And quit blaming others for your sellout.

My personal favorite is when partisans accuse independents of not having any "principles".

Holy crap. Obediently voting for a tribe, spinning for it and enabling its worst behaviors like some trained seal is some expression of "principle"?

But that's what they convince themselves. And of course, that's another behavior shared by both parties.
.

 

[dblack]

Well, here's hoping a new option shows up soon.

I just don't know how.
.

Public financing of elections!

I really, really hope you're kidding.

Someone debated me on this a few years ago here and they put up a damn good argument. Cant say I am against publicly funded elections anymore - I just do not see how that would be less effective than what we are doing now.

There are better solutions, like the one you mentioned, but that does not mean publicly funded elections would not improve what we currently have.

Public financing of elections means government financing of elections. Aspiring candidates would first please the powers that be - qualify by their rules - before they can score government funds for their election campaign. What this is attempting to do is transfer power from wealth in society to government, and I think that's a bad thing in general.

I agree in principal with this position. However, all the research I have seen on the subject seems to point the opposite way. namely, publicly financed elections lead to LESS power for the incumbent and opens elections up.

In theory, in the short term, sure. Anything that changes the rules will loosen things up - for a while, until people figure how how to game it. But ultimately, taking the power to decide who gets election funding away from free society and giving it government will be abused. Trump would abuse it in a heartbeat. Do you have any doubts?

I don't see it as a transfer of power from wealth to government though. They are the same thing - wealth and influence is what runs government anyway.

No offense, but this is where liberals jump the shark. Political power is fundamentally different than economic power. And failing to recognize that difference is paving the way for socialism, where all significant economic power will be co-opted by government.

Economic power can only buy you things. It doesn't give you the right to coerce people. Government does. That a huge difference that is foolish to ignore.

The difference I think is public funding removes some of the barriers that exist when politicians have to placate to specific interests for money.

That's really the whole goal of socialism, isn't it - to remove the need to "placate specific interests for money"? It replaces the need to appease rich people with need with the need to placate government to get what you want. That's what I mean by "transferring power from wealth to government".

And as bad as you might think it is to have wealthy interests controlling who gets funding - I think it's miles better than government. There's only one government. If you run afoul of the government, you're done. If you piss off the Koch brothers, there are others who might be willing to support your efforts. You can even get pretty far with small donations from lots of supporters. Freedom is better than ratcheting everything down under government.