Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

I'm really not, in fact I'm being quite sensible here, and in fact it is you that is the idiot.

Burn.

I've got the sickest burns, lined up, I can do this shit all night,,,

Think about this, if trump dies in office we get a spineless authoritarian christian 

Im not afraid of people like hilary or tim kane cause i know what I'm getting and it could be worse

with these two I'm shitting bricks 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXo8LoE-6mk

Considering you just repeated a popular consensus, I agree that you're certainly capable of repeating things from a list.

read my sick burn out like this for the required emphasis: https://youtu.be/Ne0RrK5qJ-k?t=69

No thanks. I'll abstain from your clickbait.

  On 10/1/2016 at 1:08 AM, Braintree said:

Kind of telling about the current political climate that if you don't vote for the big two parties then it's a "protest vote."

 

I'm not protesting anything. I'm voting for the person that most represents my values.

The time to support and bolster a 3rd party candidate is in between election days, not on them

Personally, I'm gonna write in Noam Chomsky because he best represents my values...that's a sensible use of my vote, right? I mean, we have instant run-off voting, so I don't need to strategize beyond just picking the exact person I want to be president, right?

That is illogical. The correct time to bolster a 3rd party candidate is all of the time.

Supporting someone that you genuinely don't believe in is a very disappointing and disenfranchising activity. If you vote for someone you don't even like, then you've succumb to power and your vote has been usurped.

  On 10/1/2016 at 1:15 AM, caze said:

..and thus helping to elect the person who least represents your values.

if the vote is between 2 clear candidates then ye ... then, at this stage in an election this is pretty much truth ... 

sorry braintree. 

may as well flush the vote down the toilet if not voting Hillary or Trump. 

My argument was that it's not a "protest vote," and that that language is used to shame those that have enough sense to recognize and try to break this eternal game of political ping pong.

We need to get instant run-off voting, then we won't have to worry about this problem

Once that's in place, I will happily vote 3rd party for the rest of my life...but before then, the question isn't 'which specific person should I vote for?' but rather 'which box should I check if I wanna best protect civilization from a Trump presidency?'

Braintree, you're taking voting too literally

Think about how to maximally assert your individual political power towards creating a future you don't mind living in

Think about checking the box with the most power of ensuring a future you don't mind living in

The actual name next to the box is kind-of a red herring, game theory-wise

  On 10/1/2016 at 1:53 AM, Braintree said:

My argument was that it's not a "protest vote," and that that language is used to shame those that have enough sense to recognize and try to break this eternal game of political ping pong.

her wording saying, not voting = voting for Hillary's opponent is dumb. 

but it's like, in the end, whoever wins, not voting = contributing to that. 

Yeah, if Trump is projected to win, then not voting is like saying "I'm not gonna bother trying to prevent that"

I agree that many Americans recognize the mechanisms that make the system as it is, however lack the balls in order to change it. They succumb to herd mentality (in this case, fear) rather than using reason.

  On 10/1/2016 at 2:05 AM, bitroast said:

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 1:53 AM, Braintree said:

My argument was that it's not a "protest vote," and that that language is used to shame those that have enough sense to recognize and try to break this eternal game of political ping pong.

 

her wording saying, not voting = voting for Hillary's opponent is dumb. 

 

but it's like, in the end, whoever wins, not voting = contributing to that. 

 

What? I'm commenting on the language used in the article. It's becoming more common place.

huh ?? article?? what article?? there's an article??

i was just commenting on the broader idea that not voting = protest vote. not necessarily nitpicking over the specific wording. 

But you are not using reason, Braintree...you are looking at a multi-dimensional game as though it's a one-dimensional game...

the game is that you have this little coin of influence to spend towards the possible futures on offer--how best to use it? We know the probability distributions of these possible futures on offer (based on social information like polls, etc) and so we are acting WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS...this is a game-theory problem, where the payoffs are possible futures...I would rather have a 3rd party president rather than Hillary, but that is irrelevant to what your vote actually means in the world

I get where Braintree is coming from though. We'll potentially have a record number of third-party votes this election in the likes that haven't been seen in over 150 years. Everybody's getting tired of the same stale corrupt crap when it comes down to it, even if it's not a guarantor of victory. It could pave the way for things to come.

  On 10/1/2016 at 2:14 AM, Braintree said:

I agree that many Americans recognize the mechanisms that make the system as it is, however lack the balls in order to change it. They succumb to herd mentality (in this case, fear) rather than using reason.

 

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 2:05 AM, bitroast said:

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 1:53 AM, Braintree said:

My argument was that it's not a "protest vote," and that that language is used to shame those that have enough sense to recognize and try to break this eternal game of political ping pong.

 

her wording saying, not voting = voting for Hillary's opponent is dumb. 

 

but it's like, in the end, whoever wins, not voting = contributing to that. 

 

 

 

What? I'm commenting on the language used in the article. It's becoming more common place.

na man it's not herd mentality. it's an easily defendable approach to voting that you don't agree with. i get the sanctity of the vote argument. i voted for nader from MA and i STILL defend it because it was in MA. 

it's a big bummer we're stuck here (again). but the notion that you should vote for the person who most reflects your positions with no regard to the *weighted impact of your vote* just doesn't make sense to me. yes! agitate for the positions and policies you believe in at all times. but given the situation, your best bet is to vote for  the candidate that maximizes your weighted impact, and then agitate like hell for the things you want. i'm a fan of voting for hill, then complaining about her all the time. in my case, that means default anti-war, progressive taxation, criminal justice reform, and BLM. it could mean something different for you: open trade, climate change, international human rights, i dunno! but it sounds like you sorta agree with her way more than you agree with trump and so your ability to make change would be best positioned by getting someone who won't shut you out. 

Ay, look, tho, Braintree. I'm not trying to make you feel dumb, I fucking swear to God. The thing is, we're in a democracy, and you've just gotta look at the odds. Like in the abstract, I respect you, if you wanna vote Gary Johnson (and shit this is Murca who gives a fuck whether he respects X number of foreign leaders) or Stein (I was tempted), like, I respect your principles and your values and your ideas of what the country should be like. BUT, in the shitty world we live in, as a pragmatist (and as a web developer fucking believe me I have to be pragmatist so I'm biased), we must vote for the candidate who BOTH 1) approximately represents our values AND 2) has a snowball's fucking chance in hell at getting elected.

If I'm being condescending I sincerely apologize. But this is coming from the heart man. I have plenty of grey hair, and while I don't have kids, I just don't want to live in a world where a certain orange cunt is the boss. It will be funny for like 2 months tops, and please just look at cause and effect. We're in, well, roughly, a democracy, and you've got to throw your votes behind one of the two shitty cunts. Please pick the one that is the lesser piece of shit. Bigot, war criminal, whatever, don't ask where the sausage/luncheon meat is made. Humans are lousy quantifiers but excellent comparators and please don't lie to me and pretend that one's not clearly better than the other. Because she fucking is.  One of them, speaking purely numbers, is clearly going to win.

Because, yes, this is just a numbers game and, for better or worse, the numbers are speaking pretty loudly. I know we all love teh IDMs, but learn to love one of those karaoke songs, pick it off the list, sing it like it's yours, and call it a day.

Disclaimer: I am drunk. But I'm also pretty confident in what I'm saying right now.

Sorry but the "vote for one of the two parties capable of being elected" narrative is trite.

If you think that giving your vote to a third party is worthwhile then do it. If you think that supporting a third party is the most valuable way to spend your vote then do it. You want to get out of the two party system then the best way is to continue to support a third party until they become relevant, because we all know election reform is not coming any time soon.

If you think that Trump not  getting elected is us avoiding certain doom you're wrong. Could it be awful? Yes, but so could any other candidate.

The truth is that the mechanism by which a president asserts their power is very tangled up with many different interests and powerful people.

Trump could be elected and be the most entertaining president that never changed a thing, or he could be another G W Bush.

This is a democracy. Spend your vote the way you think is best.

  On 10/1/2016 at 3:28 AM, ambermonk said:

I get where Braintree is coming from though. We'll potentially have a record number of third-party votes this election in the likes that haven't been seen in over 150 years. Everybody's getting tired of the same stale corrupt crap when it comes down to it, even if it's not a guarantor of victory. It could pave the way for things to come.

If your plan to change the system is to do zero outreach and zero coordination for 1,000 days and then suddenly casting a Hail Mary vote on Election Day (and hoping other people do too)...that is just idiotic

If you want a third party, become an 'instant run-off voting' activist in *between* election days...

  On 10/1/2016 at 12:21 AM, Braintree said:

"Fool me once....

 

...

 

Shame on...

 

Shame on you...

 

Ya fool me I can't get fooled again."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

close but no cigar haha