Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 16 released September 13th)
Polls: Romance (Results), 1951 (Results), 500<400 (Sep 23rd), 2008 (Oct 4th)
Challenges: Animation, Silent Era, Russia/USSR
Film of the Week: L'inhumaine, October nominations (Sep 25th)
World Cup S4: QF Schedule, Match QFB: India vs Greece (Sep 20th), Match QFC: Germany vs Italy (Oct 1st)

US Politics thread

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: US Politics thread

#17921

Post by Dolwphin » August 19th, 2020, 3:12 pm

George W. Bush was an honorable statesman and committed anti-racist decorum crusader. Listen folks, being responsible for 1M+ civilian deaths is not the "own" you think it is, heard about *intentions* you imbeciles? Trump, on the other hand, is terrible because he uses naughty words you see. Politics is about whether a politician is virtuous or a psychopath on a personal level you see.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13640
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#17922

Post by brokenface » August 19th, 2020, 9:14 pm

Dolwphin wrote:
August 19th, 2020, 3:12 pm
Trump, on the other hand, is terrible because he uses naughty words you see. Politics is about whether a politician is virtuous or a psychopath on a personal level you see.
What honestly is the point of this strawman bullshit?


User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17924

Post by Dolwphin » August 20th, 2020, 5:47 pm

brokenface wrote:
August 19th, 2020, 9:14 pm
Dolwphin wrote:
August 19th, 2020, 3:12 pm
Trump, on the other hand, is terrible because he uses naughty words you see. Politics is about whether a politician is virtuous or a psychopath on a personal level you see.
What honestly is the point of this strawman bullshit?
It is not a straw-man. I guess you have missed the phenomena of conservatives being outraged at Trump for his lack of decorum, but supporting virtually his entire policy agenda. Also, the Neo-liberal PMC MSM crowd basically falls into the same category. They seldom oppose toxic conservative policy (they are even BFF with prominent Neo-conservatives and praises GWB) but they do oppose Trump -- because he is BAD you see.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan



User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11190
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17927

Post by St. Gloede » August 24th, 2020, 9:45 pm

How come Arthur or Dolwhyn didn't share that the Nazis are ridin' with Biden now....... :huh:

https://www.newsweek.com/richard-spence ... ga-1527141

Immediately rejected by Biden (obviously, and nice put down by the spokesperson) but I clicked on Spencer's twitter (good thing I'm not on Twitter) and it is all pro-Biden/Harris. This one stood out, sorry to share.



Is this a bizarre way to push people back to Trump, is Trump just so incompetent the Nazis are jumping ship, or do "they" genuinely think the Dems/Biden will be better for their cause?

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17928

Post by Dolwphin » August 25th, 2020, 3:20 pm

Dolwhyn is in a labor dispute with his handlers and refuses to follow US politics that closely until it is resolved. Obviously Trump needs all the help he can get, I got leverage on fancy bear! PAY RAISE NOW.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17929

Post by Dolwphin » August 25th, 2020, 4:27 pm

Not even the highly entertaining Trolley Problem is allowed to prosper under NJR's non-coercive non-cancelling regime.

Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan


User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6453
Joined: Jul 04, 2011
Contact:

#17931

Post by sebby » August 27th, 2020, 4:38 am

Wildcat strikes across US sports as a response to the attempted murder of Jacob Blake by police. It just doesn't stop.

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 7062
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#17932

Post by 3eyes » August 27th, 2020, 5:40 pm

Meanwhile, although I've never voted Republican and haven't watched a convention of either party since 1968, I'm watching the Alternative Republican convention https://www.cfp2020.us/ and finding it therapeutic.
:run: STILL the Gaffer!



User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17935

Post by Dolwphin » September 2nd, 2020, 7:49 pm

Joe Kennedy III defeated by Ed Markey in Massachusetts Senate Primary race.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 12092
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#17936

Post by Armoreska » September 5th, 2020, 5:46 pm

Anybud voting 3rd party? This might be the time.
Image
currently working towards a vegan/free world + thru such film lists (besides TV): ANARCHISTS, 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17937

Post by Dolwphin » September 5th, 2020, 6:37 pm

The funny thing is that both Democrats/Republicans think it is the end of the world if the opposing identical party controls the executive branch for the next 4 years. Apparently either democracy is ending and fascism is becoming the hegemonic ideology or the family/country/culture is being exterminated and socialism is becoming the hegemonic ideology. Democrats are also obsessed with demonizing and blaming Green Party voters for their electoral failures. I say vote Green -- they have better policy --- and enjoy the Democrats tears.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24820
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#17938

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » September 5th, 2020, 8:04 pm

Dolwphin wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 6:37 pm
The funny thing is that both Democrats/Republicans think it is the end of the world if the opposing identical party
Two things being bad, or even unacceptable, does not make them identical. Being killed by being shot in the head, tortured to death or shut in a room with minimal food are all bad, but they are not identical.

User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 9927
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: New Mexico, Trumpistan
Contact:

#17939

Post by Knaldskalle » September 5th, 2020, 8:35 pm

Dolwphin wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 6:37 pm
I say vote Green -- they have better policy --- and enjoy the Democrats tears.
And Trump's laughter as he secures another 4 years at the helm.

The problem with the Green Party is that they pretty much only run for President and that's it. There's very little local organization with candidates running for local offices (state legislatures, governor, county commission etc). Here in New Mexico the Green Party is running 1 candidate for state office (out of 70 seats in State House of Representatives and 40 seats in the State Senate) and that's only so they can retain future ballot access. It's a joke. Even if a Green Party candidate were to win the Presidency, who'd implement their policies? Democrats and Republicans in Congress? If the Green Party is serious they'll start by actually organizing and having candidates run for (non-President) office in a serious manner, try to build a bottom-up movement rather than a some weird husk of a top-down "movement" that only consists of 2 candidates to run the entire country.
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11190
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17940

Post by St. Gloede » September 5th, 2020, 10:13 pm

There are some different ways of looking at the US election. Last time there were actually some reasons why foreigners could selfishly prefer Trump, mainly de-escalation of the conflict with Russia (including decreased likelihood of action in Syria), but of course he ended up in a massive trade war with China instead, and Russia relations are not rosy - more importantly he pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement, and endless other issues. We can be quite certain that Biden will, if anything, not be worse on foreign relations, and that he will be better on the environment (much better - though nowhere near where he should be) - for some, that's enough.

For Americans there are of course countless internal issues, and here it is obviously better to get the Democrats in. While Biden is far right by world standards and opposes universal healthcare (which is sick, evil, etc.) he does want to murder less Americans, and has opted for a public options. Yale documented 68k people in America dying due to not being able to afford healthcare, this would become lower with Biden - and it already happened with Obama's ACA before - thousands upon thousands of lives were saved - this could happen again. This is not minor. Biden is also pushing to decriminalise marijuana and release all inmates convicted for cannabis use, which is also a high number.

The only two calculations against Biden/Harris that makes sense (to me) is 1. the issue of succession, i.e. 1 term with Biden, then Harris gets the full backing of the party. This could mean 12 years with Biden/Harris - or even 16 (though that's unlikely). 2. The idea that Trump is a symptom created by Obama, and that yet another set of years with liberals in charge will lead to even worse responses - the scary boogeyman most often pushed is Tucker Carlson (I would not be completely shocked if he ran). I do understand the concerns, as you could look at a long, long period of hard right leadership either way, with little hope of even starting the process to get universal healthcare ...

(and yes, that is a shitty situation)

But, I don't really understand the Green party vote.

Sure, there is the naive hope they may eventually stand a chance, which is just not humanly possible unless the entire system is changed, and even then deeply unlikely.

Then there is the idea that it pushes the dems left, as they know there is a notable voting block ignoring them - but the evidence does not back this up either, i.e. Nader scored 5% and all that happened was ... nothing. Voting Green does not push the dems left, they simply shoot for the "moderate republican vote".

There is the idea of "Dem tears" that Dolwphin brings up above, i.e. the protest/spite vote - that's the only one I understand on a personal level - and I can see how it could be gratifying - though you have to either be quite comfortable or extremely screwed to think there is zero difference - as there will always be certain policies/actions of extreme impact.

You do have the moral/ethical idea that voting = support and that you are responsible for any wrong doing the candidate you vote for commits. This is nonsensical, especially if there is reasonable belief that one candidate will be less dangerous (trolley problem!!! Nathan J. Robinson was wrong :lol: ). You can of course do the calculus and find out you have no idea which is worse, and in that case, fine, but generally that is not the case.

And then you finally have the most bizarre idea that voting Green party, and getting them to 5% (now 15%) to see them on the debate stage will get "these ideas out there". This is the one that is the most bizarre to at at an intellectual level as, 1: reaching 15% is nearly impossible and would likely take decades with massive electoral consequences (it wouldn't work) and 2: you can get these ideas out there by running on the Dem ticket and receive far more media coverage, like Sanders did.


User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7937
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#17942

Post by xianjiro » September 6th, 2020, 8:04 am

Knaldskalle wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 8:35 pm
Dolwphin wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 6:37 pm
I say vote Green -- they have better policy --- and enjoy the Democrats tears.
And Trump's laughter as he secures another 4 years at the helm.

The problem with the Green Party is that they pretty much only run for President and that's it. There's very little local organization with candidates running for local offices (state legislatures, governor, county commission etc). Here in New Mexico the Green Party is running 1 candidate for state office (out of 70 seats in State House of Representatives and 40 seats in the State Senate) and that's only so they can retain future ballot access. It's a joke. Even if a Green Party candidate were to win the Presidency, who'd implement their policies? Democrats and Republicans in Congress? If the Green Party is serious they'll start by actually organizing and having candidates run for (non-President) office in a serious manner, try to build a bottom-up movement rather than a some weird husk of a top-down "movement" that only consists of 2 candidates to run the entire country.
The Greens haven't really recovered since the 2000 Nader debacle. Our local green party (Pacific Party) was viable until the Nader campaign convinced PP leadership to 'merge'. All the good was sucked out and an emaciated shell left behind. PP had been running local candidates (statewide on down) and encouraged people to run for school boards etc, but all that ended with the 2000 campaign and W sneaking into the White House.

The party still exists as the Pacific Green Party, but it's basically a non-entity at this point. Even at its best, it was only scoring about 5% of the vote statewide. While enough to be considered 'viable' and eligible for elections supports, no one was actually shaking in their shoes.

It's hard to say if movement away from the Republicans (largely due to that party's takeover by Christian fundamentalists) was just part of the ascendancy of the Dems to statewide domination or if they picked up the green voters lost by the Pacific Party after that. Up until the mid Teens, the Republicans were able to control at least one house of the legislature, but now Ds have a super-majority in at least the House (can't remember if that's the case in the Senate, but I think it's just a simple majority). Now the Rs can't win statewide: they did get the Secretary of State, but that's mostly because the last D who had it was voted out for some scandal. Will be interesting to see if they can hold it next time.

Like most places, there is no longer a truly viable third party now.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1988
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#17943

Post by matthewscott8 » September 6th, 2020, 10:26 am

Dolwphin wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 6:37 pm
The funny thing is that both Democrats/Republicans think it is the end of the world if the opposing identical party controls the executive branch for the next 4 years. Apparently either democracy is ending and fascism is becoming the hegemonic ideology or the family/country/culture is being exterminated and socialism is becoming the hegemonic ideology. Democrats are also obsessed with demonizing and blaming Green Party voters for their electoral failures. I say vote Green -- they have better policy --- and enjoy the Democrats tears.
The US is scheduled to come out of the Paris agreement the day after the election. Biden would take the US back in almost immediately. What would a win for a green president mean. They would have nobody to work with in either chamber, it would be catastrophic. In politics the best way to get change is to lead an insurgency within parties. Folks are so tribal that they would vote for a turnip with their rosette colour of preference.

It would take 50 years to get the Green Party on a par with either Republican or Democrat, we don't have even close to that amount of time to change things.

User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 1149
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#17944

Post by Kublai Khan » September 6th, 2020, 2:10 pm

Until the US seriously adopts ranked voting, 3rd party candidates always will always be considered spoiler candidates.
Owner of three platinums:
  • FilmTotaal top 100
  • IMDb's 1980s Top 50
  • IMDb's Animation Top 50

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17945

Post by Dolwphin » September 6th, 2020, 3:39 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 10:13 pm
There are some different ways of looking at the US election. Last time there were actually some reasons why foreigners could selfishly prefer Trump, mainly de-escalation of the conflict with Russia (including decreased likelihood of action in Syria), but of course he ended up in a massive trade war with China instead, and Russia relations are not rosy - more importantly he pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement, and endless other issues. We can be quite certain that Biden will, if anything, not be worse on foreign relations, and that he will be better on the environment (much better - though nowhere near where he should be) - for some, that's enough.

For Americans there are of course countless internal issues, and here it is obviously better to get the Democrats in. While Biden is far right by world standards and opposes universal healthcare (which is sick, evil, etc.) he does want to murder less Americans, and has opted for a public options. Yale documented 68k people in America dying due to not being able to afford healthcare, this would become lower with Biden - and it already happened with Obama's ACA before - thousands upon thousands of lives were saved - this could happen again. This is not minor. Biden is also pushing to decriminalise marijuana and release all inmates convicted for cannabis use, which is also a high number.

The only two calculations against Biden/Harris that makes sense (to me) is 1. the issue of succession, i.e. 1 term with Biden, then Harris gets the full backing of the party. This could mean 12 years with Biden/Harris - or even 16 (though that's unlikely). 2. The idea that Trump is a symptom created by Obama, and that yet another set of years with liberals in charge will lead to even worse responses - the scary boogeyman most often pushed is Tucker Carlson (I would not be completely shocked if he ran). I do understand the concerns, as you could look at a long, long period of hard right leadership either way, with little hope of even starting the process to get universal healthcare ...

(and yes, that is a shitty situation)

But, I don't really understand the Green party vote.

Sure, there is the naive hope they may eventually stand a chance, which is just not humanly possible unless the entire system is changed, and even then deeply unlikely.

Then there is the idea that it pushes the dems left, as they know there is a notable voting block ignoring them - but the evidence does not back this up either, i.e. Nader scored 5% and all that happened was ... nothing. Voting Green does not push the dems left, they simply shoot for the "moderate republican vote".

There is the idea of "Dem tears" that Dolwphin brings up above, i.e. the protest/spite vote - that's the only one I understand on a personal level - and I can see how it could be gratifying - though you have to either be quite comfortable or extremely screwed to think there is zero difference - as there will always be certain policies/actions of extreme impact.

You do have the moral/ethical idea that voting = support and that you are responsible for any wrong doing the candidate you vote for commits. This is nonsensical, especially if there is reasonable belief that one candidate will be less dangerous (trolley problem!!! Nathan J. Robinson was wrong :lol: ). You can of course do the calculus and find out you have no idea which is worse, and in that case, fine, but generally that is not the case.

And then you finally have the most bizarre idea that voting Green party, and getting them to 5% (now 15%) to see them on the debate stage will get "these ideas out there". This is the one that is the most bizarre to at at an intellectual level as, 1: reaching 15% is nearly impossible and would likely take decades with massive electoral consequences (it wouldn't work) and 2: you can get these ideas out there by running on the Dem ticket and receive far more media coverage, like Sanders did.
The only argument is the harm reduction argument --- the lesser of two evils thesis -- which it seems about 50 % of respectable left discourse creators embrace (e.g. Chomsky). And the idea that marginal differences have significant utility difference outcomes. There is validity to that outlook, but it's implications are so fatalistically bleak and depressing. Basically you are only voting to decide at which rate things should be deconstructed. There is no hope of development towards the Left, only management of the speed towards the continual drift to the Right. And regardless of how you vote (D/R/I) , due to external factors, it is predetermined that this Overtone Window should continue in the same direction. Maybe you could intellectualize and justifiable rationalize such a thesis, but it is hardly surprising that the following is roughly true:

Stayed home: 45 %
Clinton: 28 %
Trump: 25 %
3rd Party: 2 %

I don't see that much difference between GOP/DEM (offensive I'm sure if you are a Democrat/Republican) because they are both owned by Capital. They are both controlled by campaign donors which dictate how they can vote. I'd rather vote for a candidate/party which I actually have some agreement with.

The lesser of two evils argument can off course be used to argue that you must vote for Trump, depending on your policy preferences and/or what issue you value highest. Imagine if trade, criminal justice or diplomacy with North Korea was your key issues.

People tend to underestimate the evil of Joe Biden and overestimate the evil of Donald Trump. It is telling that the worst POTUS in US history is being embraced by the Democratic party to "own" Trump. It is also telling that Democrats, despite calling Trump a fascist controlled by Putin, is so eager to enhance his surveillance state and military budget.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11190
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17946

Post by St. Gloede » September 6th, 2020, 5:05 pm

I don't think thousands of additional US residents being allowed to live, the potential of pardoning all cannabis use convicted prisoners and some action (vs. no action) on climate change is insignificant - and if just one of these things go through I would say it is a vote for improvement as opposed to just harm reduction. I understand and agree with your main premise, the Democratic party is a dangerous far-right party (by world standards), but I don't see a solution. What does not voting for harm reduction/small improvements to a terrible system accomplish?

I also disagree with your conclusion, namely that the overton window stays the same and that there is no hope. Just by having Bernie Sanders run (twice) segmented universal healthcare as a key issue the majority of Americans now support (despite the fact that right wing eteemists like Biden and Trump will fight to keep murdering their citizens). You have a long line of pro-universal healthcare democrats now, and we are seeing actual social democratic policies making their way into the mainstream.

The issue with the thesis is sadly also that Sanders ran twice, second time as the front runner - everyone knew he would run again - but people did not come out to vote in the numbers that were hoped. The US had a chance to get, if not the policies themselves, a president that would take them away from the hellscape they live in - and it did not activate the majority of the non-voters. They still stayed at home, even though it was not a lesser evil vote. That is of course extremely depressing in itself - but it showcases how little change a third party actually could have, when even an extremely popular non-spoiler candidate advocating for policies the majority of Americans want could not win an elected needing much less votes.

However, there is also something positive there, which is that Sanders came closer than anyone on the left to making it onto the ballot, and drastically changed the overton window. Secondly, he genuinely could have won, he was the front-runner, and only tactical unity on the side of the Liberals stopped him. Obviously it showed that the majority of the Dem party voters are Liberals, but that could easily change in the future given how big Sanders' support is with those under 45. These centre to centre-left ideas that Sanders were pushing used to be considered fringe, now they are mainstream, and there is a big push behind them. More and more politicians will run on them and more and more politicians will win on them - and I think Sanders, and AOC, Tlaib, etc. have also shown that the path to victory and spreading the message is through Democratic primaries - which is also where a small group of people can make a massive difference.

It is also important to note that a lot of great political power does not need to come from electoral politics. While I know you are not a big fan of the BLM protests, they have managed to push through concessions in certain locations, elsewhere strong unions have managed to do the same. There are many ways to gain a platform and even direct power to impact policy or actively make changes yourself.

matthewscott8
Donator
Posts: 1988
Joined: May 13, 2015
Contact:

#17947

Post by matthewscott8 » September 6th, 2020, 5:42 pm

Kublai Khan wrote:
September 6th, 2020, 2:10 pm
Until the US seriously adopts ranked voting, 3rd party candidates always will always be considered spoiler candidates.
I think in the US they definitely go down as spoilers yeah. In the UK UKIP managed to fundamentally change things here (for the worse) despite never having been in power. They got the prime minister to do the referendum.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17948

Post by Dolwphin » September 6th, 2020, 6:00 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 6th, 2020, 5:05 pm
I don't think thousands of additional US residents being allowed to live, the potential of pardoning all cannabis use convicted prisoners and some action (vs. no action) on climate change is insignificant - and if just one of these things go through I would say it is a vote for improvement as opposed to just harm reduction. I understand and agree with your main premise, the Democratic party is a dangerous far-right party (by world standards), but I don't see a solution. What does not voting for harm reduction/small improvements to a terrible system accomplish?

I also disagree with your conclusion, namely that the overton window stays the same and that there is no hope. Just by having Bernie Sanders run (twice) segmented universal healthcare as a key issue the majority of Americans now support (despite the fact that right wing eteemists like Biden and Trump will fight to keep murdering their citizens). You have a long line of pro-universal healthcare democrats now, and we are seeing actual social democratic policies making their way into the mainstream.

The issue with the thesis is sadly also that Sanders ran twice, second time as the front runner - everyone knew he would run again - but people did not come out to vote in the numbers that were hoped. The US had a chance to get, if not the policies themselves, a president that would take them away from the hellscape they live in - and it did not activate the majority of the non-voters. They still stayed at home, even though it was not a lesser evil vote. That is of course extremely depressing in itself - but it showcases how little change a third party actually could have, when even an extremely popular non-spoiler candidate advocating for policies the majority of Americans want could not win an elected needing much less votes.

However, there is also something positive there, which is that Sanders came closer than anyone on the left to making it onto the ballot, and drastically changed the overton window. Secondly, he genuinely could have won, he was the front-runner, and only tactical unity on the side of the Liberals stopped him. Obviously it showed that the majority of the Dem party voters are Liberals, but that could easily change in the future given how big Sanders' support is with those under 45. These centre to centre-left ideas that Sanders were pushing used to be considered fringe, now they are mainstream, and there is a big push behind them. More and more politicians will run on them and more and more politicians will win on them - and I think Sanders, and AOC, Tlaib, etc. have also shown that the path to victory and spreading the message is through Democratic primaries - which is also where a small group of people can make a massive difference.

It is also important to note that a lot of great political power does not need to come from electoral politics. While I know you are not a big fan of the BLM protests, they have managed to push through concessions in certain locations, elsewhere strong unions have managed to do the same. There are many ways to gain a platform and even direct power to impact policy or actively make changes yourself.
If I remember correctly roughly 40K Americans died due to lack of health insurance even with Obama-care fully implemented. Is potentially a few thousand less dead supposed to be worthy of celebration? It is not like Biden's potential incremental (or socialized medicine and death panels according to GOP) reforms is going to last beyond his administration. Joe Biden does not support Medicare 4 All. He only want's to vaguely "restore and build on" Obama's legislation. Feel free to vote for Democrats if you want, but accept that nothing will fundamentally change and you are legitimizing the Democratic party. Considering the economic interests that have ownership of the Democratic Party that is never going to change. Obviously the Left is going to continue to be completely irrelevant in the US if they always bend the knee. Democratic leadership don't really have to pretend to care that much about their concerns.

That's true. Maybe it was the wrong terminology to use here. But it does not matter if you "win the argument", it never translates into legislation or policy changes. Because Kamala Harris was not opposed to M4A, then changed her mind and co-sponsored the bill in the Senate and she did not subsequently reconsider her position again and oppose the legislation. Sanders have popularized some important ideas, but despite the fact that these ideas are default operating procedure in the developed world ... they won't ever be actualized due to structural factors in US politics.

Black Lives Matter is obviously going to be partially successful when its benefactors include transnational corporations, CNN/NYT and the Democratic Party. They have an entire propaganda machine white washing their activities. Also their identity politics benefits the Democratic Party's essentialist project. That's why they have achieved such prominence. But I agree with your assertion that electoral politics is a limited vehicle for change.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11190
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17949

Post by St. Gloede » September 6th, 2020, 6:28 pm

I would say thousands of lives saved is a reason for celebration. It is not a reason to celebrate right wing extremists like Obama-Biden, who still oppose universal healthcare, even fairly cente-right plans like M4A, but if thousands of people can live, that would otherwise die, is that not a massive difference?

Both of us are Scandinavians with no impact on the election (beyond someone reading this), and I think we can all agree that nothing will fundamentally change (pending what fundamental means) but the Dems will make specific decisions that will make the world (at least for US citizens) less shitty.

As for legitimising the Democratic Party I am not sure I understand what you mean. They already are legitimate, it is the left, and even the centre-right that are not legitimate. There are only two legitimate parties in the US, the Republicans and the Democrats. Sanders, AOC, etc. have shown that they can legitimize the left and move the overton window because of the Democratic party - where no third parties have managed this.

As third parties have no possible path, and the most success is made through the Democratic Party (with the greatest successes happening over the last few years) I am not as pessimistic as you. I don't have that much trust in electoral politics, but I do think we will see more and more people left of centre in US politics getting power (that means standard right wing/centre-right elsewhere) and I do think universal healthcare will come at some point over the next 30-50 years - but clearly not with Biden - possibly with Harris though (if the pressure becomes too strong) - but like I said 30-50 years seems like a realistic and horrifying outlook to get a basic human necessity almost all other countries have covered.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17950

Post by Dolwphin » September 7th, 2020, 2:45 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 6th, 2020, 6:28 pm
I would say thousands of lives saved is a reason for celebration. It is not a reason to celebrate right wing extremists like Obama-Biden, who still oppose universal healthcare, even fairly cente-right plans like M4A, but if thousands of people can live, that would otherwise die, is that not a massive difference?

Both of us are Scandinavians with no impact on the election (beyond someone reading this), and I think we can all agree that nothing will fundamentally change (pending what fundamental means) but the Dems will make specific decisions that will make the world (at least for US citizens) less shitty.

As for legitimising the Democratic Party I am not sure I understand what you mean. They already are legitimate, it is the left, and even the centre-right that are not legitimate. There are only two legitimate parties in the US, the Republicans and the Democrats. Sanders, AOC, etc. have shown that they can legitimize the left and move the overton window because of the Democratic party - where no third parties have managed this.

As third parties have no possible path, and the most success is made through the Democratic Party (with the greatest successes happening over the last few years) I am not as pessimistic as you. I don't have that much trust in electoral politics, but I do think we will see more and more people left of centre in US politics getting power (that means standard right wing/centre-right elsewhere) and I do think universal healthcare will come at some point over the next 30-50 years - but clearly not with Biden - possibly with Harris though (if the pressure becomes too strong) - but like I said 30-50 years seems like a realistic and horrifying outlook to get a basic human necessity almost all other countries have covered.
St. Gloede is a murderer! I kant' believe it, but what would you expect from an official from the authorities? Sure it is good if less people die, but incremental unpopular reforms (that the populace perceive as socialized medicine) won't survive during the next GOP-administration.

Voting for the lesser of two evils for decades has resulted in ... And will continue to result in ... Godwin says: Why not vote for Strasser to stop Hitler while you're at it?

True. But, the Democratic party is the graveyard of progressive/leftist movements in the US. If strong 3rd parties existed they would exercise some degree of influence, like during the 1930's on the FDR-administration. Yes, but Sanders function is ultimately to defuse leftist energy and sheep-dog progressive into the Democratic party. He did not even protest when they stole the nomination from him in 2016.

Let's hope for the best.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 12092
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#17951

Post by Armoreska » September 7th, 2020, 5:10 pm

At least the accelerationists are happy with the 3rd-party approach.
Image
currently working towards a vegan/free world + thru such film lists (besides TV): ANARCHISTS, 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11190
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17952

Post by St. Gloede » September 7th, 2020, 6:06 pm

Dolwphin wrote:
September 7th, 2020, 2:45 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
September 6th, 2020, 6:28 pm
I would say thousands of lives saved is a reason for celebration. It is not a reason to celebrate right wing extremists like Obama-Biden, who still oppose universal healthcare, even fairly cente-right plans like M4A, but if thousands of people can live, that would otherwise die, is that not a massive difference?

Both of us are Scandinavians with no impact on the election (beyond someone reading this), and I think we can all agree that nothing will fundamentally change (pending what fundamental means) but the Dems will make specific decisions that will make the world (at least for US citizens) less shitty.

As for legitimising the Democratic Party I am not sure I understand what you mean. They already are legitimate, it is the left, and even the centre-right that are not legitimate. There are only two legitimate parties in the US, the Republicans and the Democrats. Sanders, AOC, etc. have shown that they can legitimize the left and move the overton window because of the Democratic party - where no third parties have managed this.

As third parties have no possible path, and the most success is made through the Democratic Party (with the greatest successes happening over the last few years) I am not as pessimistic as you. I don't have that much trust in electoral politics, but I do think we will see more and more people left of centre in US politics getting power (that means standard right wing/centre-right elsewhere) and I do think universal healthcare will come at some point over the next 30-50 years - but clearly not with Biden - possibly with Harris though (if the pressure becomes too strong) - but like I said 30-50 years seems like a realistic and horrifying outlook to get a basic human necessity almost all other countries have covered.
St. Gloede is a murderer! I kant' believe it, but what would you expect from an official from the authorities? Sure it is good if less people die, but incremental unpopular reforms (that the populace perceive as socialized medicine) won't survive during the next GOP-administration.
Confused by the murderer joke. :blink:

You first claim is not true, ACA still exists. Incremental changes can and do survive. If the Democrats establish a Public Option it can just just be thrown out of the window.
Voting for the lesser of two evils for decades has resulted in ... And will continue to result in ... Godwin says: Why not vote for Strasser to stop Hitler while you're at it?

True. But, the Democratic party is the graveyard of progressive/leftist movements in the US. If strong 3rd parties existed they would exercise some degree of influence, like during the 1930's on the FDR-administration. Yes, but Sanders function is ultimately to defuse leftist energy and sheep-dog progressive into the Democratic party. He did not even protest when they stole the nomination from him in 2016.

Let's hope for the best.
I don't understand your logic here I'm afraid. If the only real choices are Strasser vs. Hitler you should of course vote Strasser. What is the alternative? If it is just Strasser vs. Hitler (realistically) that is what you should do. No question, no alternative. You can of course protest, even commit acts of terrorism, etc. but that's more of a "yes, and ..." situation - nothing good is done by not selrecting the lesser evil - unless you specifically believe in accellerationism and violent revolution.

Do you believe you can have a 3rd party come to power? (Or that you can get a few million people together and overthrow the US government?)

As for Sanders I completely disagree. He changed the overton window completely, as you requested, and has built an incredible amount of popularity and power. Through him left wing ideas were legitimized, and he has shown the only realistic path for left wing ideas to gain power. I don't see the conspiratorial sheep-dog idea. There was next to no left-energy before him. He alone revitalized the US left. You create sheepdogs to stop movements, not to create them.

This is also where the lesser evil argument fails, as clearly the only demonstrably successful path is legitimizing left wing ideas and getting people who are to the left of the dems elected - which is in full flow as we speak. Why would you abandon the most successful left wing strategy in History (and the only successful - electoral - left wing strategy since the 20s, when there were two socialist congressmen).

The situation is bad no matter what, but I don't see any purpose in wasting left wing energy as something as doomed and irrelevant as third parties, when Sanders already got these ideas platformed, and people representing decent, humane policies are being elected.

But yes, let's hope for the best.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17953

Post by Dolwphin » September 8th, 2020, 10:09 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 7th, 2020, 6:06 pm
Dolwphin wrote:
September 7th, 2020, 2:45 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
September 6th, 2020, 6:28 pm
I would say thousands of lives saved is a reason for celebration. It is not a reason to celebrate right wing extremists like Obama-Biden, who still oppose universal healthcare, even fairly cente-right plans like M4A, but if thousands of people can live, that would otherwise die, is that not a massive difference?

Both of us are Scandinavians with no impact on the election (beyond someone reading this), and I think we can all agree that nothing will fundamentally change (pending what fundamental means) but the Dems will make specific decisions that will make the world (at least for US citizens) less shitty.

As for legitimising the Democratic Party I am not sure I understand what you mean. They already are legitimate, it is the left, and even the centre-right that are not legitimate. There are only two legitimate parties in the US, the Republicans and the Democrats. Sanders, AOC, etc. have shown that they can legitimize the left and move the overton window because of the Democratic party - where no third parties have managed this.

As third parties have no possible path, and the most success is made through the Democratic Party (with the greatest successes happening over the last few years) I am not as pessimistic as you. I don't have that much trust in electoral politics, but I do think we will see more and more people left of centre in US politics getting power (that means standard right wing/centre-right elsewhere) and I do think universal healthcare will come at some point over the next 30-50 years - but clearly not with Biden - possibly with Harris though (if the pressure becomes too strong) - but like I said 30-50 years seems like a realistic and horrifying outlook to get a basic human necessity almost all other countries have covered.
St. Gloede is a murderer! I kant' believe it, but what would you expect from an official from the authorities? Sure it is good if less people die, but incremental unpopular reforms (that the populace perceive as socialized medicine) won't survive during the next GOP-administration.
Confused by the murderer joke. :blink:

You first claim is not true, ACA still exists. Incremental changes can and do survive. If the Democrats establish a Public Option it can just just be thrown out of the window.
Voting for the lesser of two evils for decades has resulted in ... And will continue to result in ... Godwin says: Why not vote for Strasser to stop Hitler while you're at it?

True. But, the Democratic party is the graveyard of progressive/leftist movements in the US. If strong 3rd parties existed they would exercise some degree of influence, like during the 1930's on the FDR-administration. Yes, but Sanders function is ultimately to defuse leftist energy and sheep-dog progressive into the Democratic party. He did not even protest when they stole the nomination from him in 2016.

Let's hope for the best.
I don't understand your logic here I'm afraid. If the only real choices are Strasser vs. Hitler you should of course vote Strasser. What is the alternative? If it is just Strasser vs. Hitler (realistically) that is what you should do. No question, no alternative. You can of course protest, even commit acts of terrorism, etc. but that's more of a "yes, and ..." situation - nothing good is done by not selrecting the lesser evil - unless you specifically believe in accellerationism and violent revolution.

Do you believe you can have a 3rd party come to power? (Or that you can get a few million people together and overthrow the US government?)

As for Sanders I completely disagree. He changed the overton window completely, as you requested, and has built an incredible amount of popularity and power. Through him left wing ideas were legitimized, and he has shown the only realistic path for left wing ideas to gain power. I don't see the conspiratorial sheep-dog idea. There was next to no left-energy before him. He alone revitalized the US left. You create sheepdogs to stop movements, not to create them.

This is also where the lesser evil argument fails, as clearly the only demonstrably successful path is legitimizing left wing ideas and getting people who are to the left of the dems elected - which is in full flow as we speak. Why would you abandon the most successful left wing strategy in History (and the only successful - electoral - left wing strategy since the 20s, when there were two socialist congressmen).

The situation is bad no matter what, but I don't see any purpose in wasting left wing energy as something as doomed and irrelevant as third parties, when Sanders already got these ideas platformed, and people representing decent, humane policies are being elected.

But yes, let's hope for the best.
I kan't understand why you are confused, when you have declared that we should pull the lever for Biden.

ACA is not that popular, have always hoovered around 50 % approval. It was not formally abolished legislatively, but it has been severely weakened.

It would only make sense (for me) if the election actually was existential (e.g. Democracy was ending and the holocaust was imminent), but reality is that only marginal differences exists between the two parties. Why bother, then, selecting evil when you can vote for a 3rd Party that actually share your values and policy preferences? It is better to refuse to vote for Democrats until they start endorsing a globally centrist policy agenda.

Gloede have been exposed as a supporter of Nazism! He is building a red-brown alliance for sure. I am opposed to race biology myself, but maybe that is just me. :mrgreen:

He was not created, he ultimately served the function as.

Yes the argument have been won! And if the US was a functioning Democracy that would be great news! But it is completely irrelevant as mentioned previously. These candidates are all from one particular state which is not that impressive.

It is arguable whether it is "worth" it to completely abandon your principles/ideological believes, and sacrifice precious income + pay poll tax + spend hours in lines, in order to support corporatism/militarism/Id-pol with a patina that probably would have marginally better utility outcomes ... while simultaneously hopefully live in a purple state which actually matters, and lastly that your ballot will actually be counted. I'm psyched! #VoteBlueNoMatterWho
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 9927
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: New Mexico, Trumpistan
Contact:

#17954

Post by Knaldskalle » September 9th, 2020, 3:36 am

Dolwphin wrote:
September 8th, 2020, 10:09 pm
It would only make sense (for me) if the election actually was existential (e.g. Democracy was ending and the holocaust was imminent), but reality is that only marginal differences exists between the two parties. Why bother, then, selecting evil when you can vote for a 3rd Party that actually share your values and policy preferences? It is better to refuse to vote for Democrats until they start endorsing a globally centrist policy agenda.
Your choice: Moderaterna or Sverigedemokraterne. No one else has a chance. Doesn't matter what your opinion is, those are your two choices. You can talk about Vansterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, Centerpartiet until you're blue in the face, they don't have a chance.

If you vote Liberal or Greens or Kristdemokraterna or anything other than Moderaterna, your vote supports Sverigedemokraterna. That's the system. It sucks, but that's the unfortunate reality. Why do you think the largest voting block in the US is the non-voter?
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17955

Post by Dolwphin » September 9th, 2020, 5:22 am

Knaldskalle wrote:
September 9th, 2020, 3:36 am
Dolwphin wrote:
September 8th, 2020, 10:09 pm
It would only make sense (for me) if the election actually was existential (e.g. Democracy was ending and the holocaust was imminent), but reality is that only marginal differences exists between the two parties. Why bother, then, selecting evil when you can vote for a 3rd Party that actually share your values and policy preferences? It is better to refuse to vote for Democrats until they start endorsing a globally centrist policy agenda.
Your choice: Moderaterna or Sverigedemokraterne. No one else has a chance. Doesn't matter what your opinion is, those are your two choices. You can talk about Vansterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, Centerpartiet until you're blue in the face, they don't have a chance.

If you vote Liberal or Greens or Kristdemokraterna or anything other than Moderaterna, your vote supports Sverigedemokraterna. That's the system. It sucks, but that's the unfortunate reality. Why do you think the largest voting block in the US is the non-voter?
I think there is validity to the idea of harm reduction. But there could be negative consequences over time too, such a voting strategy won't stop the decay -- you are closing the avenue of electoral politics as a vehicle for fundamental change. Also, the point of absurd/extreme examples (e.g. Duke v. Spencer) in these types of discussions is to emphasize the uneasiness of actually embracing the principle.

I would vote for SD not M in that hypothetical scenario. But I understand your point, but to continue the analogy I would vote for my actual preference which is V (despite their naive immigration policy, id-pol shenanigans and softness on Islamic extremism) . But I know certain people like to vote strategically which is fine; probably the reason both MP and KD is still in the parliament by the way.

Many reasons probably. I think people don't see much meaning with participating due to both parties being similarly corrupt and elitist. It won't change their lives for the materially better if Democrats or Republicans wins the election. Change on the outside, continuity on the inside. Structural factors obviously manufactures low voter turnout. Trust should be low for the integrity of elections in the US (e.g. Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, Cross Check 2016) but I suspect that is not widely known.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11190
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17956

Post by St. Gloede » September 9th, 2020, 6:55 am

I don't undersatand your argument, Dolwphin.

Could you clarify, please.

From your reply to Knaldskalle it seems that you actually do support electoral politics and see it as an avenue for change, which very much confuses me, and seems to leave only one option: that you genuinly believe a third party can win.

Is that the case?

If you were in Sweden I would of course agree, you can vote your conscience, so can I, and our parties will get 4-10% of the vote (hopefully more in the future) and have an impact - but this cannot happen in the US. Do you have reason to believe it can?

Secondly, I already showcased how this argument is wrong, as you can primary Dems with better candidates, a strategy that is working (unlike any Green party strategy). Working within the Democratic party has shifted the overton window (which you opened up with stating was one of your main concerns) and has gotten left-wing/left-leaning candidates to the congress and the senate. So you are not closing electoral politics as an avenue of change, you are opening this avenue. It is the other way around.

I already countered your talking points above - incremental changes are not instantly removed, Biden - while yes, an evil, will lead to improvement as opposed to less decay, i.e. those voting for Biden will not be voting for less decay, they will be voting for actual improvements to society.

Please clarify what you believe voting third party can achieve in the US.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17957

Post by Dolwphin » September 9th, 2020, 9:46 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 9th, 2020, 6:55 am
I don't undersatand your argument, Dolwphin.

Could you clarify, please.

From your reply to Knaldskalle it seems that you actually do support electoral politics and see it as an avenue for change, which very much confuses me, and seems to leave only one option: that you genuinly believe a third party can win.

Is that the case?

If you were in Sweden I would of course agree, you can vote your conscience, so can I, and our parties will get 4-10% of the vote (hopefully more in the future) and have an impact - but this cannot happen in the US. Do you have reason to believe it can?

Secondly, I already showcased how this argument is wrong, as you can primary Dems with better candidates, a strategy that is working (unlike any Green party strategy). Working within the Democratic party has shifted the overton window (which you opened up with stating was one of your main concerns) and has gotten left-wing/left-leaning candidates to the congress and the senate. So you are not closing electoral politics as an avenue of change, you are opening this avenue. It is the other way around.

I already countered your talking points above - incremental changes are not instantly removed, Biden - while yes, an evil, will lead to improvement as opposed to less decay, i.e. those voting for Biden will not be voting for less decay, they will be voting for actual improvements to society.

Please clarify what you believe voting third party can achieve in the US.
I already said I don't vote strategically; unless the stakes would actually be existential. You can notify me when this Sam Harris hypothetical becomes reality. It is not that relevant who "wins" of the two wings of the same party. If you are deeply invested in that spectacle that would obviously change things. Change won't happen because a 3rd party magically "wins" the election either. But you would voting for your preferred candidate, and that could theoretically have positive effects over time.

The Overtone Window has moved (for now) and some (relatively) leftist Democrats from NY have been elected to Congress. I can see why you think this is positive and encouraging.

I see you are riding with Biden. SAD! :down:

Why does it have to achieve anything? (Everybody stay away from the vicinity of Gloede's hospital. He is about to save five precious lives!) Also: What leverage/power does leftist have to pressure Democrats to enact a globally centrist policy agenda if we always offer our unconditional support?
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4413
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17958

Post by Dolwphin » September 9th, 2020, 9:53 pm

Multi-track drifting: I suggest voting for both Democrats/Republicans AND a 3rd party :party:
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11190
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17959

Post by St. Gloede » September 9th, 2020, 10:58 pm

Dolwphin wrote:
September 9th, 2020, 9:46 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
September 9th, 2020, 6:55 am
I don't undersatand your argument, Dolwphin.

Could you clarify, please.

From your reply to Knaldskalle it seems that you actually do support electoral politics and see it as an avenue for change, which very much confuses me, and seems to leave only one option: that you genuinly believe a third party can win.

Is that the case?

If you were in Sweden I would of course agree, you can vote your conscience, so can I, and our parties will get 4-10% of the vote (hopefully more in the future) and have an impact - but this cannot happen in the US. Do you have reason to believe it can?

Secondly, I already showcased how this argument is wrong, as you can primary Dems with better candidates, a strategy that is working (unlike any Green party strategy). Working within the Democratic party has shifted the overton window (which you opened up with stating was one of your main concerns) and has gotten left-wing/left-leaning candidates to the congress and the senate. So you are not closing electoral politics as an avenue of change, you are opening this avenue. It is the other way around.

I already countered your talking points above - incremental changes are not instantly removed, Biden - while yes, an evil, will lead to improvement as opposed to less decay, i.e. those voting for Biden will not be voting for less decay, they will be voting for actual improvements to society.

Please clarify what you believe voting third party can achieve in the US.
I already said I don't vote strategically; unless the stakes would actually be existential. You can notify me when this Sam Harris hypothetical becomes reality. It is not that relevant who "wins" of the two wings of the same party. If you are deeply invested in that spectacle that would obviously change things. Change won't happen because a 3rd party magically "wins" the election either. But you would voting for your preferred candidate, and that could theoretically have positive effects over time.

The Overtone Window has moved (for now) and some (relatively) leftist Democrats from NY have been elected to Congress. I can see why you think this is positive and encouraging.

I see you are riding with Biden. SAD! :down:

Why does it have to achieve anything? (Everybody stay away from the vicinity of Gloede's hospital. He is about to save five precious lives!) Also: What leverage/power does leftist have to pressure Democrats to enact a globally centrist policy agenda if we always offer our unconditional support?
You just contradicted yourself - and to an extreme extent.

This is what you wrote yesterday:
I think there is validity to the idea of harm reduction. But there could be negative consequences over time too, such a voting strategy won't stop the decay -- you are closing the avenue of electoral politics as a vehicle for fundamental change.
You made claims here that seemed to matter to you - I made the case you were wrong and showcased why - you ignored it and replied with the above. A little lazy, no? ;)

You make the case here that the outcome of voting is irrelevant to you, - you then throw in a material claim to back up your choice based on outcome - which I already discredited above - i.e. that the left can get leverage in not voting. This is simply false, as demonstrated earlier - and made even more ridiculous by you consistently ignoring the fact that you can vote for good platforms in the primaries.

To be fair, most of what you say seems to be a joke, and as neither of us are Americans, neither of us will voke, and this is only a philosophical conversation of no real relevance, I suppose that is ok. :lol:

Though if you were in the US and refused to vote for possible positive changes saving thousands of lives, and for no reason whatsoever, that would be pretty sad.

That said, I am very happy I do not need to be ridin' with Biden - my sympathies to all of the US.

User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 1149
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#17960

Post by Kublai Khan » September 9th, 2020, 11:32 pm

Today, the news is that Trump specifically knew how bad the coronavirus would be and he deliberately downplayed it. Easily tens of thousands of lives would have been saved if he had been honest and acted decisively from the beginning. Also, he's been deliberately silencing his leading expert on infectious diseases.

He's also told his supporters to vote twice and slandered the legitimacy of the voting process. He is actively recruiting volunteers to "poll watch". In addition to slowing down the US postal service to discourage voting by mail.

He's also planning on nominating Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz as federal judges.

But I'm sorry, I interrupted Dolwphin who was busy lecturing us on how both sides are equally bad from his Scandinavian ivory tower.
Owner of three platinums:
  • FilmTotaal top 100
  • IMDb's 1980s Top 50
  • IMDb's Animation Top 50

Post Reply