5 Ways The Internet Convinced Me To Not Vote

[Order 66]

If you want to be a mainstream politician in america you have to play to the center. Its a big, diverse and complicated electorate

Its true a president romney wont start banning abortions or anything i think the case for obama is more about not enabling boehner and mconnel and the overarching 'fuck you i got mine' gop agenda. I dont think many competent people think obama and romney are lightyears apartin governing

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Is banning abortion on Romney's platform? I'm pretty sure he will not pursue any policy on abortion of substantial difference to Obama. Even if he's going to do some incremental thing which can be overturned under the next Democratic president, it seems silly to throw away an opportunity for ten or twenty percent of the hard-core left to show what's most important to them by voting Green, Nader or Johnson.

yes, voting for a third party candidate is much more important than keeping another antonin scalia off the bench. because... message sending!

you're the most impractical person i've ever encountered.

[duovamp]

I'm voting for myself. Here I come, Washington fat cats!

[duovamp]

Wait, is his argument "One step backwards and one step forward is just as good as two steps forward"?

[duovamp]

Hey it's been pretty quick and painless to unfuckup the W. shit stain, right?

[duovamp]

This is a goddamn outrage! I can't find someone who perfectly represents all of my beliefs and never compromises and always accomplishes his/her goals in a representative government such as this republic?! Are you kidding me? Fuck it all, I'm not voting then!

[Trotskilicious]

well in some countries i'd be able to vote for my party but not here

[john's ego]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

KUCINICH/SANDERS '16

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

yes, voting for a third party candidate is much more important than keeping another antonin scalia off the bench. because... message sending!

you're the most impractical person i've ever encountered.

This is always the nuclear option when people get their blind faith in the party questioned. I'm surprised it came up so early. The supreme court is not going to ever, EVER overrule Roe and apart from a few dinosaurs who are left on the court, any future appointees are going to be moderates regardless of president because of this:

Originally Posted by Order 66

If you want to be a mainstream politician in america you have to play to the center. Its a big, diverse and complicated electorate

People can't say that, on the one hand, presidential candidates are rigid ideologues (always exceptions, but generally the rule) but are also focused on expedience, self-interest or corporate influence or whatever. Sane people know that Order 66 is right, but few people are willing to let this fact actually do the work of abolishing the myths that the party tells them.

Voting for a third party does not win elections but it shifts party ideology. This has been quantitatively proven god knows how many times. Heck, Romney is being forced by the Paul delegation today to support an audit of the fed - never would have happened if all those people would have voted for McCain in 2008. If you want to keep voting, year after year, for garbage, then vote for candidates like Obama and Romney.

Don't blame me for the impracticalities of the system - I didn't make up the rules for FPP elections. If it were up to me, we'd use AV or something better, so that we're not required to play these games.

[jczeroman]

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/r...in-ar-2138869/

[duovamp]

Actually the big parties absorb the little parties' beliefs and make them obsolete - see bee sting parties. The democratic process breeds moderates. The closer to the middle you are the more votes you can get. This is political science 101 and I feel stupid laying it out to anyone over 20.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/r...in-ar-2138869/

Kind of stupid opinion here. I want a specific football team to win too, but they don't control public school, research, medicine, a powerful and expensive military, tax rates... Sorry but the stakes in a presidential election are pretty high.

[Trotskilicious]

the president doesn't control public school or tax rates

i dunno what medicine and research mean but i'll let you have them

[duovamp]

Veto power herrderr.

[duovamp]

Also we're talking about parties in that opinion, not one specific office.

[Trotskilicious]

you're very silly

[duovamp]

I'll assume you meant to type sexy.

[Trotskilicious]

sig war declared

[Trotskilicious]

i just want an excuse to post japandroids

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Actually the big parties absorb the little parties' beliefs and make them obsolete - see bee sting parties. The democratic process breeds moderates. The closer to the middle you are the more votes you can get. This is political science 101 and I feel stupid laying it out to anyone over 20.

That's not true at all. FPP breeds moderates - or at least, wins them elections. Plenty of other democratic-ish states have voting systems which allow for representation of non-mainstream beliefs.

Originally Posted by duovamp

Kind of stupid opinion here. I want a specific football team to win too, but they don't control public school, research, medicine, a powerful and expensive military, tax rates... Sorry but the stakes in a presidential election are pretty high.

The point of the article is not to suggest that people shouldn't want specific candidates to win. It is expressing the idea that the general election is theatre at best, and the arguments which are being used by Romney and Obama are applicable, at least in a general sense, to each other.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

The supreme court is not going to ever, EVER overrule Roe

you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, clearly. they've already chipped away at it, and 4 justices are aching to overturn it already. one more republican appointee and it's gone.

also Roe isn't the only thing to worry about. one more liberal justice and citizens united gets overturned. not to mention the eradication of rights related to criminal procedure that could be potentially restored.

i don't feel like having this argument. you are very clearly wrong.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Don't blame me for the impracticalities of the system - I didn't make up the rules for FPP elections. If it were up to me, we'd use AV or something better, so that we're not required to play these games.

uhhh

but we do use fpp. and so the games have to be played. i'd change it too, but i can't. so i deal with what i have. pragmatism has its place.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, clearly. they've already chipped away at it, and 4 justices are aching to overturn it already. one more republican appointee and it's gone.

also Roe isn't the only thing to worry about. one more liberal justice and citizens united gets overturned. not to mention the eradication of rights related to criminal procedure that could be potentially restored.

i don't feel like having this argument. you are very clearly wrong.

eulogy at some point you're going to have to realize that predictions are subjective

[Eulogy]

and at some point you're going to have to realize that the supreme court matters more than you seem to understand and that another republican appointee would be disastrous. i can link to the old thread if i have to. i'm not going over it again.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, clearly. they've already chipped away at it, and 4 justices are aching to overturn it already. one more republican appointee and it's gone.

also Roe isn't the only thing to worry about. one more liberal justice and citizens united gets overturned. not to mention the eradication of rights related to criminal procedure that could be potentially restored.

i don't feel like having this argument. you are very clearly wrong.

You do realise that this is the exact argument which right-wingers use? You are following the program dude.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

uhhh

but we do use fpp. and so the games have to be played. i'd change it too, but i can't. so i deal with what i have. pragmatism has its place.

But it doesn't, not in FPP. That's exactly my point. By choosing the "pragmatic" option, you are actually not being pragmatic or strategic at all. You are being a pawn.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

You do realise that this is the exact argument which right-wingers use? You are following the program dude.

right wingers say we need to elect a democratic president to prevent a republican appointee to the supreme court?

[Trotskilicious]

hysterical arm waving

[Eulogy]

pointing out one of the only things a president has any actual, direct effect on and acknowledging its importance is not hysterical.

[Eulogy]

you just think that any reason to vote is automatically invalid and so any explanation of it will seem hysterical to you. there really is no point in having this conversation again.