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

  On 10/1/2016 at 5:19 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

If you think that Trump not  getting elected is us avoiding certain doom you're wrong.

  On 10/1/2016 at 5:19 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

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

Yes BUT realize what the outcome is gonna be.

If you vote Stein realizing you are helping Trump win, I mean, they are night and day. But, sure, like I said, Trump will be entertaining, for at least a little while. Just hope he doesn't turn into a nuclear-obsessed Kim Jung Un type.

Tell me how voting for Stein or Johnson isn't the same as just writing in "Neil Degrasse Tyson"...? I mean, realistically each of them has a roughly 0% chance of winning...

  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.

Yes. The idea is that in order for any real change to happen, it needs to start somewhere. By voting for either Republican or Democrat, you're keeping the status quo. Every 4 years both parties dream up a bigger bogeyman and claim "now isn't the time for a 3rd party vote." Frankly, I'm surprised the lot of you haven't seen this pattern, or if you have, I'll stick with my previous comment...

  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.

unless you literally have zero opinion on whether clinton wins or whether trump wins, then sure go for it. 

vote for 3rd party. perhaps there'll be a surprise landslide 3rd party win? who knows. wow, how exciting though. glad you lot are making sure your votes count :^) 

  On 10/1/2016 at 5:55 AM, Braintree said:

 

  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.

 

Yes. The idea is that in order for any real change to happen, it needs to start somewhere. By voting for either Republican or Democrat, you're keeping the status quo. Every 4 years both parties dream up a bigger bogeyman and claim "now isn't the time for a 3rd party vote." Frankly, I'm surprised the lot of you haven't seen this pattern, or if you have, I'll stick with my previous comment...

 

  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.

 

Yeah but you are just one ballot. You're not composing, like, an epic poem that will tug at the heartstrings of generations. All you are doing is moving a needle. And there's only 2 needles that matter.

Bernie got close but no cigar. So that ship done sailed. Sorry, Charlie.

If you're voting for the person most likely to win instead of the person that you prefer, then you've completely lost the idea of democracy.

Don't forget that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the DNC chair and managed to have the Democratic primary rigged in Hillary's favor. Don't forget that there was fraud and voter suppression left and right against Bernie supporters. That's why Jill has been getting growing support since June in the first place.

The night before June 7th is when Hillary had a private meeting with Bernie, and then he announced his endorsement for her the next day. Tell me that isn't unusual.

  On 10/1/2016 at 5:40 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 5:19 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

If you think that Trump not  getting elected is us avoiding certain doom you're wrong.

 

http://www.orangefreesounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Wrong-answer-sound-effect.mp3

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 5:44 AM, sweepstakes said:

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 5:19 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

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

Yes BUT realize what the outcome is gonna be.

 

If you vote Stein realizing you are helping Trump win, I mean, they are night and day. But, sure, like I said, Trump will be entertaining, for at least a little while. Just hope he doesn't turn into a nuclear-obsessed Kim Jung Un type.

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 5:54 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Tell me how voting for Stein or Johnson isn't the same as just writing in "Neil Degrasse Tyson"...? I mean, realistically each of them has a roughly 0% chance of winning...

Well if everyone that wanted to vote third party did so the third party would show a lot more support and be taken much more seriously which is positive in the long run. If you think that the fallout from trump is not bad enough to implode the USA then this long term mindset might actually improve the country faster than staying with the two party system.

  On 10/1/2016 at 6:10 AM, ambermonk said:

The night before June 7th is when Hillary had a private meeting with Bernie, and then he announced his endorsement for her the next day. Tell me that isn't unusual.

bernie is keenly aware of the power he has and is playing it out skillfully, and will continue to even after hillary has taken office, if she wins. his whole campaign, while he clearly wanted to win, was largely about moving the dialogue further left. i can't be bothered to pull up the interviews right now but from the way he has talked about it, it is clear that he extracted concessions from clinton relating to her positions on liberal issues in exchange for his support.

did you think she threatened to kill him?

  On 10/1/2016 at 6:06 AM, Braintree said:

If you're voting for the person most likely to win instead of the person that you prefer, then you've completely lost the idea of democracy.

O come on. Strategic voting has been part of democracies since its birth. Please dont go for the "holier than thou" nonsense by saying it's unreasonable to use anything else but your principles. Same holds for the people trying to tell Braintree how to vote, obvs

If you think voting for a third party candidate is more important than voting for the best possible outcome, so be it. You're not being any bit more (or less) democratic or rational than voters who use a different set of principles.

The people hoping to avoid a Trump in the White House just have to accept that there's always going to be people who will support their preferred candidate regardless of the outcome.

Also, there seems to be a confusion between "status-quo" and "system". If I understand correctly, the american democratic system has been a two-party system right from the start. A system. By design. It is explicitly designed to have limited choices.. Design is something different to "status quo". You can talk about a status quo when the next ten presidents will be democrats.

  On 10/1/2016 at 7:40 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 6:06 AM, Braintree said:

If you're voting for the person most likely to win instead of the person that you prefer, then you've completely lost the idea of democracy.

O come on. Strategic voting has been part of democracies since its birth. Please dont go for the "holier than thou" nonsense by saying it's unreasonable to use anything else but your principles. Same holds for the people trying to tell Braintree how to vote, obvs

 

If you think voting for a third party candidate is more important than voting for the best possible outcome, so be it. You're not being any bit more (or less) democratic or rational than voters who use a different set of principles.

 

The people hoping to avoid a Trump in the White House just have to accept that there's always going to be people who will support their preferred candidate regardless of the outcome.

 

What I'm saying is unreasonable is to blindly follow the rest of the people voting a certain way even though you don't agree with their vote.

Also, the original point I was bringing up was that NOT voting the same way everyone else does is not a "protest vote." That's more propaganda to get the herd to behave. It's a way to control those that may feel shameful for not voting Democrat. The subtext to their term is that if you don't vote Clinton, then you're voting for Trump, which must make you a racist xenophobe.

How I used 'status quo' was correct since I'm referring to the way things are handled, and have been handled for a long time.

  On 10/1/2016 at 8:06 AM, Braintree said:

How I used 'status quo' was correct since I'm referring to the way things are handled, and have been handled for a long time.

That really doesn't make any sense, or clear anything up. But hell, you are correct.

*strokes braintrees ego to try to calm him down*

  On 10/1/2016 at 8:13 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 8:06 AM, Braintree said:

How I used 'status quo' was correct since I'm referring to the way things are handled, and have been handled for a long time.

That really doesn't make any sense, or clear anything up. But hell, you are correct.

 

*strokes braintrees ego to try to calm him down*

 

You're free to vote the way you want and also look up the definition of status quo whenever you get around to it. Heaven knows you haven't yet.

  On 10/1/2016 at 8:15 AM, Braintree said:

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 8:13 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 8:06 AM, Braintree said:

How I used 'status quo' was correct since I'm referring to the way things are handled, and have been handled for a long time.

 

That really doesn't make any sense, or clear anything up. But hell, you are correct.

*strokes braintrees ego to try to calm him down*

 

You're free to vote the way you want and also look up the definition of status quo whenever you get around to it. Heaven knows you haven't yet.

  Quote

Status quo is a Latin phrase meaning the existing state of affairs, particularly with regards to social or political issues.[1] In the sociological sense, it generally applies to maintain or change existing social structure and values.[2]

There seem to have been a lot of changes in social values in the recent years. Same sex marriage? What's the status quo you're talking about?

If you want a more progressive social agenda, you really have to vote for Hillary. Remember the supreme court? What kind of judges would Trump bring to the supreme court? I'm not sure if voting for Stein will help.

But I'm still not sure where you want to go with your status quo. Mansplaining me to read a dictionary wont help. Opinions usually stay outside of dictionaries.

yeah, anyone interested in real reform should be interested in making sure the currently empty 9th seat of the supreme court is filled by hillary and not trump, plus other seats which are not unlikely to be open in the next 4 years.

throwing a vote away on a third party is not so much principalled and idealistic as it is lazy and ignorant.

i mean.. yeah

vote for for you wanna vote for.

that's what voting is all about init. apologies for being a prood dick earlier :^)

  On 10/1/2016 at 8:35 AM, very honest said:

throwing a vote away on a third party is not so much principalled and idealistic as it is lazy and ignorant.

Third-party voting is not lazy and ignorant. Not voting at all and not giving a shit is.

what the fuck

  On 10/1/2016 at 9:11 AM, ambermonk said:

 

  On 10/1/2016 at 8:35 AM, very honest said:

throwing a vote away on a third party is not so much principalled and idealistic as it is lazy and ignorant.

Third-party voting is not lazy and ignorant. Not voting at all and not giving a shit is.

Well it's kind of like asking for world peace for your birthday. 

As mentioned earlier in the thread, support the third parties between elections. When they finally start to be a threat in the polls, that's when it actually makes sense to commit your ballot to them. Also: when Trump is not running. Who knows what's going to happen to the GOP in the next four years? Maybe they will leave some room for underdogs.

wow, every 4 years, the same stupid fucking argument about changing the status quo/supporting who you believe in by voting for someone who will have exactly zero impact on anything you claim needs to be changed. i mean is it really that fucking difficult to consider the realistic outcomes of your vote for one of the running four candidates to make a rational decision?

here's a simple diagram:

vote for clinton >>>4 more years of obama with less charisma

trump >>> insanity and unpredictablness

stein >>>more chance of trump winning

johnson>>>more chance of trump winning

that's it, those are the only options. you can't reinvent the laws at this point, stein/johnson getting 1-2% more will have no impact. if you want to change the system then make an actual effort like the bernie bros did (and almost made it happen), or kill clinton and then somehow make bernie replace her. don't come up with a moronic argument a few weeks before the election.

  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.

This election will not have a record number of third party votes, Nader got around 3% of the vote in 2000, and Perot got 19% in 1992 (8% in '96). Stein won't get more than 2%, she's a joke of a candidate, Johnson won't get 10%, might be closer to 5% if he keeps doing dumb shit on TV.