Rhythm Wrote:

abaris Wrote:But not voting at all is more or less giving up. I can't remember when the last time was that I voted for someone. But there was always something to vote against. If it means supporting someone I didn't like, so be it. I liked the opposite even less. But there's one thing for sure. Radicals are far more likely to participate to push their candidate/perty through. So, chances are, that in not voting, you're actually supporting radicalism by proxy.

That's always something to consider.

You don;t have to vote to effect change.  In this climate with these candidates, arguably, voting is the -least- effective way to secure meaningful change.  A vote legitimizes an unrepresentative government...regardless of whether your vote carries.  When whomever wins, wins, no matter what they do (and even when they do those things they promised not to, things you might have thought you were voting "against")....are they going to do anything -other- than point to all those votes, to their mandate?

Not voting is a vote for the status quo. It's like saying: meh, whoever wins is fine with me. Plus, it's charity to those you disagree with, their vote matters more because your vote isn't there to dilute their power. Very generous.

If you don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump, find someone of opposing ideology who doesn't want to vote for Clinton or Trump. You can vote for Stein, they can vote for Johnson. That way, you're not 'de facto voting for Trump/Clinton' since you're both subtracting one voter from each.

A vote towards whoever has the greatest chance of defeating Trump is the best way to minimize the chances of Trump becoming president though right?

(July 26, 2016 at 9:58 am)vorlon13 Wrote: I'd like to think with every upward blip in the polls for Trump the (current and former) poobahs at DNC headquarters will be literally experiencing crashing waves of nausea repeatedly if not continuously for their connivance and deception and lying.

They won't be. They would have to actually admit wrongdoing first, and that will never happen. The DNC behaved and continue to behave arrogantly, and they will follow their nominee's example by blaming everyone else before themselves. The DNC chair resigned and immediately got a high level job in the Clinton campaign, and will very likely get a position in the administration. That tells you all you need to know.

What serves my long term best enlightened self interest though ??

A squeaky clean, spit and polished, honorable DNC is worth quite a bit to me. Maybe more than an election.

If it takes a fucking debacle to pound home some VERY EASY and OBVIOUS lessons they should ALREADY FUCKING KNOW, then maybe a fucking debacle is the proper fucking remedy.

I agree the remedy seems grossly out of proportion, but the incompetence and connivance and arrogance demands stern correction. Damn fucking shame the folks that birthed this fucking cluster fuck didn't see their actions leading us here, but here we are, and, to use some religious imagery, maybe purification by fire is just the thing for the long term fix that I find myself craving.

I rather not burn in the fire of a conservative Supreme Court for the next 30 years for the pleasure of knowing the DNC might be cleaner during the last 26 of those years.

(July 26, 2016 at 10:35 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I rather not burn in the fire of a conservative Supreme Court for the next 30 years for the pleasure of knowing the DNC might be cleaner during the last 26 of those years.

Right, but what if we can have both? As I've said numerous times, I'm in a "safe" state, possibly one of the safest states for Democrats (Massachusetts). Trump will never win my state. My vote (or rather, my wife's vote) is a chance to try and end the two party system by getting another party enough popular vote to qualify for the debates in the next election.

I'm not in the business of telling people how to vote, unlike some Clinton supporters here I could name, but if you are in a safe state for either Republicans or Democrats, and you don't like either nominee for those parties, why not vote for a third party this election? Your vote won't change the electoral college results, but it will affect the popular vote, and who knows, maybe we'll see 3 or even 4 candidates at the debates in 4 years.

Opening up the presidency to more than just two parties will force the current two to rethink their strategies and try to appeal to a broader range of voters.

(July 25, 2016 at 11:56 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 25, 2016 at 10:24 am)wallym Wrote: Both parties need people to come out and vote.  

What needs to happen is that people need to stop considering Republicans and Democrats as the only options. Until the chokehold the two parties have on governance is broken, nothing will change.

I don't see our de facto two party system as the most problematic aspect of our governmental system. Perhaps if we had more parties pushing a greater variety of agendas they'd have to stop avoiding all specificity. Perhaps. More likely the parties with the broadest backing would still obfuscate to avoid alienating supporters. I have to doubt that our largely uneducated electorate is going to suddenly become more shrewd just because there are more options.

A bigger problem is that power is difficult to wield in the US. Separation of powers is supposed to provide checks and balances. It simultaneously hinders actually accomplishing anything toward change. As a result "Separation of powers" and "checks and balances" become code for "preservation of the status quo".

(July 26, 2016 at 10:49 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(July 26, 2016 at 10:35 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I rather not burn in the fire of a conservative Supreme Court for the next 30 years for the pleasure of knowing the DNC might be cleaner during the last 26 of those years.

Right, but what if we can have both? As I've said numerous times, I'm in a "safe" state, possibly one of the safest states for Democrats (Massachusetts). Trump will never win my state. My vote (or rather, my wife's vote) is a chance to try and end the two party system by getting another party enough popular vote to qualify for the debates in the next election.

I'm not in the business of telling people how to vote, unlike some Clinton supporters here I could name, but if you are in a safe state for either Republicans or Democrats, and you don't like either nominee for those parties, why not vote for a third party this election? Your vote won't change the electoral college results, but it will affect the popular vote, and who knows, maybe we'll see 3 or even 4 candidates at the debates in 4 years.

Opening up the presidency to more than just two parties will force the current two to rethink their strategies and try to appeal to a broader range of voters.

Tib i would love if a third party candidate won this election at this point it is a very likely thing it would happen considering how Hillary is doing now since
if we did hold a election today or even yesterday she would loose. All it takes now is for that other batch of emails she won't even have a shot at getting into the oval office.

That's exact reason I keep voting for the Green Party where I live (although even if it wasn't a safe Conservative seat I believe I still would because they aren't scary like Republicans). I want the Greens to keep increasing their share of the vote in General Elections because it means they get more media attention. Saying that, I still get people call me a Fascist for dating to criticise Hilary Clinton.

I hear you Tiberius. - about constantly having to repeat yourself, I keep having to repeat myself to the same Clinton people and I think we both know who you're referring too. It's very sad because these people frame it like they are the intelligent ones. More intelligent than Trump supporters, that's for sure, but by how much?

When you have to keep repeating the same thing it says something about who you're taking to. They are stuck in their little bubble. And you certainly don't win people over to your side by insulting them.