Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
With Love and Courage
+6
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.
If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
So instead we should pick the greater evil?
Only if you think that voting for a third party is equivalent to voting for a Republican. I don't buy that line of reasoning, but ymmv.
My point is that she's not a lesser evil, especially if you voted for Obama twice, which if I recall, you did. She's a slightly less good than Obama, because she'll probably have one major unforced error in the Middle East.
I don't think she's only slightly less good than Obama, however. I think she is significantly less good than him, most especially because of her foreign policy. Which isn't to say I don't think she has positions that are very admirable, for instance, her original position on universal health care.
If you don't buy the reasoning that a 3rd party / abstain vote makes it easier for your least favored option to win, you either don't understand how the election process works or you don't understand math. This isn't a symmantic argument. For someone who favors the policies of the left, your three choices come down to:
1) Increase the likelihood of a Democrat winning by one vote (vote for them). The GOP now has one more vote to overcome.
2) Increase the likelihood of the Republican winning by half a vote (abstain/3rd party vote). The GOP now has one less vote to overcome.
3) increase the likelihood of the Republican winning by one vote (vote for them). The GOP now has one more vote.
These are your only choices. Yay FPTP!
And especially with the Green Party you claim to support as a backup, whose agenda specifically overlaps exclusively with Democrat voters. They aren't drawing from the disaffected ranks of the GOP to support an environmental legislation agenda.
No, the Green Party favors anti-nuclear hysteria, murdering children through neglect, and poaching.
Woah, really?
well, the first part of that is definitely true
a lot of people, especially those that lived through Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, are still really scared of nuclear power
part of that is justified, due to the fact that the companies that make and operate reactors haven't been putting a good-faith effort into making them safe, but just as many are opposed to nuclear power as a matter of course, because they believe that it is impossible to make safe
And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.
If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
Pass.
This is specifically infuriating. You have the choice between a candidate who represents some of your views, not all of them, and won't burn things down. Then you have a candidate that is actively looking to burn things down, kick out your friends and neighbors, and foster an environment of hate and misery.
This isn't some noble "I refuse to vote for any evil, look how pure and just I am!" situation, no matter how much that makes you feel better. Voting for a third party candidate in the US is specifically voting to harm the party that overlaps with that, specifically Democratic candidates in most cases. You claim to like Sanders's viewpoints? Then why the hell wouldn't you vote for Clinton over Trump or Cruz?! She actually shares many of them with Sanders, even if not to the extent you like.
You cannot in good faith say by abstaining or voting third party that you are doing anything except for pushing for a GOP candidate. Because, in real functional terms, that is what you are doing. Check the self righteousness at the door and look at reality with how it actually is. You have a choice between someone who will do alright-to-ok, or a choice for someone who will seriously fuck over everyone. You've already made this mistake back in 2000. Doing it again in 2016 is no longer even excusable by ignorance. You are making a bad decision by your own political views and are supporting people who not only disagree with Sanders' positions, but would make serious inroads to undo all of the current policies and liberties that his goals are built upon.
No this is shit. If the DNC wants to keep liberal voters or not that is on them not the voters.
As someone who voted for Obama, Obama the President is a disappointing aquasense to 'the system' compared to Obama the Candidate. Now the DNC is going to run Hillary, someone to the right of Obama the President.
If enough people go 3rd party and Hilary loses and Trump/Cruz/WhoEver wins. That falls 100% on the Democratic Party.
They have a voter who is their natural target voter. Who they manage to get off their ass and to the polls- the hardest fucking step!. And still decides 'no you don't actually do shit for me fuck off'. If you lose people at that point maybe it is on you, not the person pulling the lever.
Blaming the voter is like someone walking into your restaurant, looking at the menu then walking out. And then going "What a fucker just helping out McDonalds".
As previously stated, this argument is what primaries are for. Once you get to the general election functionally you have two choices: support whatever form of the ideology you stand behind, or support those diametrically against it by voting for the rival party or through inaction or through third party voting.
While I agree entirely that there should be better, more progressive candidates leading the pack in the Democratic Party that is a different issue than a general election, and the cost of not supporting the democratic candidate based upon purity levels to ideology is tangible, real, and immediate.
Sure, but the cost of continuing to support center-right democratic candidates is as well. Especially as the party is now, after having moved incrementally leftwards is being tacked back to the right.
e: I mean fuck, one of the arguments FOR CLINTON in this thread is that she'll probably only cause a few thousand more deaths than a more left politician like Obama would.
Unless you truly believe that Clinton is worse or equal, I'm not sure what your point is. People have gone on about the futility of voting in a way that is not rationally consistent with the current electoral process.
It is not inconsistent with the electoral process. A party that is winning doesn't change. So if Clinton wins, there is no incentive for the party to move left. The democratic party is moving right by nominating Clinton. Voting for Clinton is a vote to move the Democratic party right.
It is like an optimization problem, where you are prevented from moving toward the global maxima by an interposed minima. So your optimizer keeps moving in the wrong direction. You can't fix that by just repeating the same operation that got you to that spot over and over-which is what the 'at least it's not the GoP' voting heuristic is.
And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.
If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
Pass.
This is specifically infuriating. You have the choice between a candidate who represents some of your views, not all of them, and won't burn things down. Then you have a candidate that is actively looking to burn things down, kick out your friends and neighbors, and foster an environment of hate and misery.
This isn't some noble "I refuse to vote for any evil, look how pure and just I am!" situation, no matter how much that makes you feel better. Voting for a third party candidate in the US is specifically voting to harm the party that overlaps with that, specifically Democratic candidates in most cases. You claim to like Sanders's viewpoints? Then why the hell wouldn't you vote for Clinton over Trump or Cruz?! She actually shares many of them with Sanders, even if not to the extent you like.
You cannot in good faith say by abstaining or voting third party that you are doing anything except for pushing for a GOP candidate. Because, in real functional terms, that is what you are doing. Check the self righteousness at the door and look at reality with how it actually is. You have a choice between someone who will do alright-to-ok, or a choice for someone who will seriously fuck over everyone. You've already made this mistake back in 2000. Doing it again in 2016 is no longer even excusable by ignorance. You are making a bad decision by your own political views and are supporting people who not only disagree with Sanders' positions, but would make serious inroads to undo all of the current policies and liberties that his goals are built upon.
No this is shit. If the DNC wants to keep liberal voters or not that is on them not the voters.
As someone who voted for Obama, Obama the President is a disappointing aquasense to 'the system' compared to Obama the Candidate. Now the DNC is going to run Hillary, someone to the right of Obama the President.
If enough people go 3rd party and Hilary loses and Trump/Cruz/WhoEver wins. That falls 100% on the Democratic Party.
They have a voter who is their natural target voter. Who they manage to get off their ass and to the polls- the hardest fucking step!. And still decides 'no you don't actually do shit for me fuck off'. If you lose people at that point maybe it is on you, not the person pulling the lever.
Blaming the voter is like someone walking into your restaurant, looking at the menu then walking out. And then going "What a fucker just helping out McDonalds".
As previously stated, this argument is what primaries are for. Once you get to the general election functionally you have two choices: support whatever form of the ideology you stand behind, or support those diametrically against it by voting for the rival party or through inaction or through third party voting.
While I agree entirely that there should be better, more progressive candidates leading the pack in the Democratic Party that is a different issue than a general election, and the cost of not supporting the democratic candidate based upon purity levels to ideology is tangible, real, and immediate.
Sure, but the cost of continuing to support center-right democratic candidates is as well. Especially as the party is now, after having moved incrementally leftwards is being tacked back to the right.
e: I mean fuck, one of the arguments FOR CLINTON in this thread is that she'll probably only cause a few thousand more deaths than a more left politician like Obama would.
Unless you truly believe that Clinton is worse or equal, I'm not sure what your point is. People have gone on about the futility of voting in a way that is not rationally consistent with the current electoral process.
It is not inconsistent with the electoral process. A party that is winning doesn't change. So if Clinton wins, there is no incentive for the party to move left. The democratic party is moving right by nominating Clinton. Voting for Clinton is a vote to move the Democratic party right.
It is like an optimization problem, where you are prevented from moving toward the global maxima by an interposed minima. So your optimizer keeps moving in the wrong direction. You can't fix that by just repeating the same operation that got you to that spot over and over-which is what the 'at least it's not the GoP' voting heuristic is.
No it's not. At least I don't see it that way. Her platform isn't that from what I've seen.
No I don't.
+22
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
Thousands of innocent people are dying in Syria right now. We could probably stop it from happening, but it might start WW3, among other things.
Foreign Policy is generally a buffet of awful choices, and the work is to make them at least somewhat less awful. Now, that isn't to say you can't make out right bad decisions. But rarely can you make good ones. And when you can, they are extremely fucking difficult, and never assured.
And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.
If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
Pass.
This is specifically infuriating. You have the choice between a candidate who represents some of your views, not all of them, and won't burn things down. Then you have a candidate that is actively looking to burn things down, kick out your friends and neighbors, and foster an environment of hate and misery.
This isn't some noble "I refuse to vote for any evil, look how pure and just I am!" situation, no matter how much that makes you feel better. Voting for a third party candidate in the US is specifically voting to harm the party that overlaps with that, specifically Democratic candidates in most cases. You claim to like Sanders's viewpoints? Then why the hell wouldn't you vote for Clinton over Trump or Cruz?! She actually shares many of them with Sanders, even if not to the extent you like.
You cannot in good faith say by abstaining or voting third party that you are doing anything except for pushing for a GOP candidate. Because, in real functional terms, that is what you are doing. Check the self righteousness at the door and look at reality with how it actually is. You have a choice between someone who will do alright-to-ok, or a choice for someone who will seriously fuck over everyone. You've already made this mistake back in 2000. Doing it again in 2016 is no longer even excusable by ignorance. You are making a bad decision by your own political views and are supporting people who not only disagree with Sanders' positions, but would make serious inroads to undo all of the current policies and liberties that his goals are built upon.
No this is shit. If the DNC wants to keep liberal voters or not that is on them not the voters.
As someone who voted for Obama, Obama the President is a disappointing aquasense to 'the system' compared to Obama the Candidate. Now the DNC is going to run Hillary, someone to the right of Obama the President.
If enough people go 3rd party and Hilary loses and Trump/Cruz/WhoEver wins. That falls 100% on the Democratic Party.
They have a voter who is their natural target voter. Who they manage to get off their ass and to the polls- the hardest fucking step!. And still decides 'no you don't actually do shit for me fuck off'. If you lose people at that point maybe it is on you, not the person pulling the lever.
Blaming the voter is like someone walking into your restaurant, looking at the menu then walking out. And then going "What a fucker just helping out McDonalds".
As previously stated, this argument is what primaries are for. Once you get to the general election functionally you have two choices: support whatever form of the ideology you stand behind, or support those diametrically against it by voting for the rival party or through inaction or through third party voting.
While I agree entirely that there should be better, more progressive candidates leading the pack in the Democratic Party that is a different issue than a general election, and the cost of not supporting the democratic candidate based upon purity levels to ideology is tangible, real, and immediate.
Sure, but the cost of continuing to support center-right democratic candidates is as well. Especially as the party is now, after having moved incrementally leftwards is being tacked back to the right.
e: I mean fuck, one of the arguments FOR CLINTON in this thread is that she'll probably only cause a few thousand more deaths than a more left politician like Obama would.
Unless you truly believe that Clinton is worse or equal, I'm not sure what your point is. People have gone on about the futility of voting in a way that is not rationally consistent with the current electoral process.
It is not inconsistent with the electoral process. A party that is winning doesn't change. So if Clinton wins, there is no incentive for the party to move left. The democratic party is moving right by nominating Clinton. Voting for Clinton is a vote to move the Democratic party right.
It is like an optimization problem, where you are prevented from moving toward the global maxima by an interposed minima. So your optimizer keeps moving in the wrong direction. You can't fix that by just repeating the same operation that got you to that spot over and over-which is what the 'at least it's not the GoP' voting heuristic is.
Clinton's platform is to the left of Obama's on all points except maybe Foreign Policy. You are either misinformed or arguing in bad faith.
Speaking of information, where are my exit polls, New York?! GET ON IT!!
+13
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.
If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
Pass.
This is specifically infuriating. You have the choice between a candidate who represents some of your views, not all of them, and won't burn things down. Then you have a candidate that is actively looking to burn things down, kick out your friends and neighbors, and foster an environment of hate and misery.
This isn't some noble "I refuse to vote for any evil, look how pure and just I am!" situation, no matter how much that makes you feel better. Voting for a third party candidate in the US is specifically voting to harm the party that overlaps with that, specifically Democratic candidates in most cases. You claim to like Sanders's viewpoints? Then why the hell wouldn't you vote for Clinton over Trump or Cruz?! She actually shares many of them with Sanders, even if not to the extent you like.
You cannot in good faith say by abstaining or voting third party that you are doing anything except for pushing for a GOP candidate. Because, in real functional terms, that is what you are doing. Check the self righteousness at the door and look at reality with how it actually is. You have a choice between someone who will do alright-to-ok, or a choice for someone who will seriously fuck over everyone. You've already made this mistake back in 2000. Doing it again in 2016 is no longer even excusable by ignorance. You are making a bad decision by your own political views and are supporting people who not only disagree with Sanders' positions, but would make serious inroads to undo all of the current policies and liberties that his goals are built upon.
No this is shit. If the DNC wants to keep liberal voters or not that is on them not the voters.
As someone who voted for Obama, Obama the President is a disappointing aquasense to 'the system' compared to Obama the Candidate. Now the DNC is going to run Hillary, someone to the right of Obama the President.
If enough people go 3rd party and Hilary loses and Trump/Cruz/WhoEver wins. That falls 100% on the Democratic Party.
They have a voter who is their natural target voter. Who they manage to get off their ass and to the polls- the hardest fucking step!. And still decides 'no you don't actually do shit for me fuck off'. If you lose people at that point maybe it is on you, not the person pulling the lever.
Blaming the voter is like someone walking into your restaurant, looking at the menu then walking out. And then going "What a fucker just helping out McDonalds".
As previously stated, this argument is what primaries are for. Once you get to the general election functionally you have two choices: support whatever form of the ideology you stand behind, or support those diametrically against it by voting for the rival party or through inaction or through third party voting.
While I agree entirely that there should be better, more progressive candidates leading the pack in the Democratic Party that is a different issue than a general election, and the cost of not supporting the democratic candidate based upon purity levels to ideology is tangible, real, and immediate.
Sure, but the cost of continuing to support center-right democratic candidates is as well. Especially as the party is now, after having moved incrementally leftwards is being tacked back to the right.
e: I mean fuck, one of the arguments FOR CLINTON in this thread is that she'll probably only cause a few thousand more deaths than a more left politician like Obama would.
Unless you truly believe that Clinton is worse or equal, I'm not sure what your point is. People have gone on about the futility of voting in a way that is not rationally consistent with the current electoral process.
It is not inconsistent with the electoral process. A party that is winning doesn't change. So if Clinton wins, there is no incentive for the party to move left. The democratic party is moving right by nominating Clinton. Voting for Clinton is a vote to move the Democratic party right.
It is like an optimization problem, where you are prevented from moving toward the global maxima by an interposed minima. So your optimizer keeps moving in the wrong direction. You can't fix that by just repeating the same operation that got you to that spot over and over-which is what the 'at least it's not the GoP' voting heuristic is.
That would only be true if she didn't want to win next time.
Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
Thousands of innocent people are dying in Syria right now. We could probably stop it from happening, but it might start WW3, among other things.
Foreign Policy is generally a buffet of awful choices, and the work is to make them at least somewhat less awful. Now, that isn't to say you can't make out right bad decisions. But rarely can you make good ones. And when you can, they are extremely fucking difficult, and never assured.
Yes; and the culpability for that remains in the hands of the murderers. It is not somehow applied to every nation that does not wish to engage in adventurism, trying to somehow stop violence with more violence.
Is it not interesting to you that the only people who make this argument are white people living in America with no family in the Persian Gulf? That anyone with skin in the game advises extreme caution and condemns the adventurism? It was interesting enough to me, personally, that I changed my own opinions on the matter a few years ago, realizing that the people actually living & dying in Iran / Iraq / Afghanistan do not want the adventurism to continue and are not looking for western saviors. The only people that want that are the people doing the killing & a few misguided souls paving the road to Hell with their noble intentions.
It's Ithaca. I came from Portland, OR and went to Cornell, and even I was like "Whoa, this place is full of crazy-ass hippies." They elected a mayor who can't even legally rent a car. By almost twice the votes as the second place person. I'm fairly convinced that if Cornell and Ithaca College didn't exist, it'd take approximately two years before the whole thing had morphed into a commune.
ArcTangent on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.
so, yes, there are costs to inaction
but also costs to interference
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
It is not inconsistent with the electoral process. A party that is winning doesn't change. So if Clinton wins, there is no incentive for the party to move left. The democratic party is moving right by nominating Clinton. Voting for Clinton is a vote to move the Democratic party right.
It is like an optimization problem, where you are prevented from moving toward the global maxima by an interposed minima. So your optimizer keeps moving in the wrong direction. You can't fix that by just repeating the same operation that got you to that spot over and over-which is what the 'at least it's not the GoP' voting heuristic is.
Nonsense.
The Democratic Party was the dominant party from 1938-1980 at the very least. It changed radically over that period of time. The idea that only losing parties change is baseless
i hope it's not seen that way from actually inside the sanders campaign (as opposed to the ithaca field office)
who am i kidding, though? every single example of this sort of thing i've encountered over the past 20 years, the retrospective was always "yeah, they all started believing their own spin"
It is not inconsistent with the electoral process. A party that is winning doesn't change. So if Clinton wins, there is no incentive for the party to move left. The democratic party is moving right by nominating Clinton. Voting for Clinton is a vote to move the Democratic party right.
It is like an optimization problem, where you are prevented from moving toward the global maxima by an interposed minima. So your optimizer keeps moving in the wrong direction. You can't fix that by just repeating the same operation that got you to that spot over and over-which is what the 'at least it's not the GoP' voting heuristic is.
Nonsense.
The Democratic Party was the dominant party from 1938-1980 at the very least. It changed radically over that period of time. The idea that only losing parties change is baseless
It also completely ignores the right, who's been kicking our butts in Congress but is doing so by running more and more to the right to the point of fucking collapse.
While I agree that the Democratic party has a responsibility to reach out and court liberl and progressive voters, it's not entirely on them. Liberals and progressives have a reaponsibility to engage in the process in order to shift the party towards their ideology.
Democrats tend to court centrists because they show up and vote. The reality is they have a vested interest in making those who routinely support them happy, which means they're going to go with whomever gives them the best shot at winning.
Does reality, in this case, suck? It sure does. But the way to address this is for liberals and progressives to engage and show they need to be courted. Primary all you want and push your message, but when it comes down to actual elections you have to show up and vote, even if your guy didn't get the nomination.
Both parties involved (Dems and voters) have a shared responsibility in this. From what I can see, the Dem party is at least fulfilling their part, as Hilary has been pushing for progressive policy during her campaign. Some may feel it's not enough, and that's fair, but the Dems will never push for progressive policy if progressives don't make themselves a voting bloc worth courting. Not voting or protest voting in the general election is just going to demonstrate that your vote, along with your concerns, are safe to ignore.
You and your in this post used in the general sense, of course. Not aimed at anyone in particular.
Clinton's campaign in 08 wasn't to the right of Obama and its farther left now. There's a strong argument to be made that Obama was the most centrist candidate in 08 between Clinton, Edwards and Obama.
i hope it's not seen that way from actually inside the sanders campaign (as opposed to the ithaca field office)
who am i kidding, though? every single example of this sort of thing i've encountered over the past 20 years, the retrospective was always "yeah, they all started believing their own spin"
I mean, the scuttlebutt is that Romney never wrote a concession speech he was so sure he was going to win. On election night he probably had a 10% chance at best. It's the nature of being around this sort of machine for too long.
Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.
so, yes, there are costs to inaction
but also costs to interference
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
Not every bad thing that happens is realistically preventable or should be seen as some cost of action vs inaction.
I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?
And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.
If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
Pass.
This is specifically infuriating. You have the choice between a candidate who represents some of your views, not all of them, and won't burn things down. Then you have a candidate that is actively looking to burn things down, kick out your friends and neighbors, and foster an environment of hate and misery.
This isn't some noble "I refuse to vote for any evil, look how pure and just I am!" situation, no matter how much that makes you feel better. Voting for a third party candidate in the US is specifically voting to harm the party that overlaps with that, specifically Democratic candidates in most cases. You claim to like Sanders's viewpoints? Then why the hell wouldn't you vote for Clinton over Trump or Cruz?! She actually shares many of them with Sanders, even if not to the extent you like.
You cannot in good faith say by abstaining or voting third party that you are doing anything except for pushing for a GOP candidate. Because, in real functional terms, that is what you are doing. Check the self righteousness at the door and look at reality with how it actually is. You have a choice between someone who will do alright-to-ok, or a choice for someone who will seriously fuck over everyone. You've already made this mistake back in 2000. Doing it again in 2016 is no longer even excusable by ignorance. You are making a bad decision by your own political views and are supporting people who not only disagree with Sanders' positions, but would make serious inroads to undo all of the current policies and liberties that his goals are built upon.
No this is shit. If the DNC wants to keep liberal voters or not that is on them not the voters.
As someone who voted for Obama, Obama the President is a disappointing aquasense to 'the system' compared to Obama the Candidate. Now the DNC is going to run Hillary, someone to the right of Obama the President.
If enough people go 3rd party and Hilary loses and Trump/Cruz/WhoEver wins. That falls 100% on the Democratic Party.
They have a voter who is their natural target voter. Who they manage to get off their ass and to the polls- the hardest fucking step!. And still decides 'no you don't actually do shit for me fuck off'. If you lose people at that point maybe it is on you, not the person pulling the lever.
Blaming the voter is like someone walking into your restaurant, looking at the menu then walking out. And then going "What a fucker just helping out McDonalds".
As previously stated, this argument is what primaries are for. Once you get to the general election functionally you have two choices: support whatever form of the ideology you stand behind, or support those diametrically against it by voting for the rival party or through inaction or through third party voting.
While I agree entirely that there should be better, more progressive candidates leading the pack in the Democratic Party that is a different issue than a general election, and the cost of not supporting the democratic candidate based upon purity levels to ideology is tangible, real, and immediate.
Sure, but the cost of continuing to support center-right democratic candidates is as well. Especially as the party is now, after having moved incrementally leftwards is being tacked back to the right.
e: I mean fuck, one of the arguments FOR CLINTON in this thread is that she'll probably only cause a few thousand more deaths than a more left politician like Obama would.
Unless you truly believe that Clinton is worse or equal, I'm not sure what your point is. People have gone on about the futility of voting in a way that is not rationally consistent with the current electoral process.
It is not inconsistent with the electoral process. A party that is winning doesn't change. So if Clinton wins, there is no incentive for the party to move left. The democratic party is moving right by nominating Clinton. Voting for Clinton is a vote to move the Democratic party right.
It is like an optimization problem, where you are prevented from moving toward the global maxima by an interposed minima. So your optimizer keeps moving in the wrong direction. You can't fix that by just repeating the same operation that got you to that spot over and over-which is what the 'at least it's not the GoP' voting heuristic is.
The party moves during primaries in response to polling of and lobbying by its base. It also moves slightly in elections based on the r-d spread.
It doesn't shift left because of third party turnout. People that vote third party cannot be reliably turned to the major parties by changes in platform because no move will be sufficient that doesn't alienate the center, which is most of the country. Third party results are effectively ignored for strategic planning purposes.
i hope it's not seen that way from actually inside the sanders campaign (as opposed to the ithaca field office)
who am i kidding, though? every single example of this sort of thing i've encountered over the past 20 years, the retrospective was always "yeah, they all started believing their own spin"
I mean, the scuttlebutt is that Romney never wrote a concession speech he was so sure he was going to win. On election night he probably had a 10% chance at best. It's the nature of being around this sort of machine for too long.
Meanwhile Sarah Palin wanted to give the concession speech. No, Sarah, that's not how it works. lol
And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.
If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
So instead we should pick the greater evil?
Only if you think that voting for a third party is equivalent to voting for a Republican. I don't buy that line of reasoning, but ymmv.
My point is that she's not a lesser evil, especially if you voted for Obama twice, which if I recall, you did. She's a slightly less good than Obama, because she'll probably have one major unforced error in the Middle East.
I don't think she's only slightly less good than Obama, however. I think she is significantly less good than him, most especially because of her foreign policy. Which isn't to say I don't think she has positions that are very admirable, for instance, her original position on universal health care.
If you don't buy the reasoning that a 3rd party / abstain vote makes it easier for your least favored option to win, you either don't understand how the election process works or you don't understand math. This isn't a symmantic argument. For someone who favors the policies of the left, your three choices come down to:
1) Increase the likelihood of a Democrat winning by one vote (vote for them). The GOP now has one more vote to overcome.
2) Increase the likelihood of the Republican winning by half a vote (abstain/3rd party vote). The GOP now has one less vote to overcome.
3) increase the likelihood of the Republican winning by one vote (vote for them). The GOP now has one more vote.
These are your only choices. Yay FPTP!
And especially with the Green Party you claim to support as a backup, whose agenda specifically overlaps exclusively with Democrat voters. They aren't drawing from the disaffected ranks of the GOP to support an environmental legislation agenda.
No, the Green Party favors anti-nuclear hysteria, murdering children through neglect, and poaching.
Woah, really?
well, the first part of that is definitely true
a lot of people, especially those that lived through Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, are still really scared of nuclear power
part of that is justified, due to the fact that the companies that make and operate reactors haven't been putting a good-faith effort into making them safe, but just as many are opposed to nuclear power as a matter of course, because they believe that it is impossible to make safe
Yeah, I was refering more to the claim that the green party favors "murdering children through neglect". Seems like an odd stance and I was wondering if it was true or just hyperbole.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
While I agree that the Democratic party has a responsibility to reach out and court liberl and progressive voters, it's not entirely on them. Liberals and progressives have a reaponsibility to engage in the process in order to shift the party towards their ideology.
Democrats tend to court centrists because they show up and vote. The reality is they have a vested interest in making those who routinely support them happy, which means they're going to go with whomever gives them the best shot at winning.
Does reality, in this case, suck? It sure does. But the way to address this is for liberals and progressives to engage and show they need to be courted. Primary all you want and push your message, but when it comes down to actual elections you have to show up and vote, even if your guy didn't get the nomination.
Both parties involved (Dems and voters) have a shared responsibility in this. From what I can see, the Dem party is at least fulfilling their part, as Hilary has been pushing for progressive policy during her campaign. Some may feel it's not enough, and that's fair, but the Dems will never push for progressive policy if progressives don't make themselves a voting bloc worth courting. Not voting or protest voting in the general election is just going to demonstrate that your vote, along with your concerns, are safe to ignore.
You and your in this post used in the general sense, of course. Not aimed at anyone in particular.
my theory on the centrist tendency in the democratic party is basically the theory of regression to the mean. the party is basically a coalition party made up of groups of people who have a deep and abiding investment in a focused area. they're interested in support for labor unions. or public service unions. or urban poverty. or rural poverty. or income redistribution. or gay equality. or women's issues. or latino issues. or church and state issues. or medicare. or socialized medicine. or senior issues.
but the thing is that, outside of their specific issues, most of the people in the coalition are probably fairly moderate on the others. and given the way a coalition works, each issue ends up getting compromised with the overall view, and prioritized according to the power of each coalition member.
so, you know, "The Democratic Party" isn't representing the issue you really care about to the degree you think it should is basically "working as intended" for a coalition party. It doesn't mean you shouldn't work to get your issues more attention or priority, but bolting the party because it's not exactly everything you believe in the order of priority you believe it is just foolish.
+10
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.
so, yes, there are costs to inaction
but also costs to interference
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
Not every bad thing that happens is realistically preventable or should be seen as some cost of action vs inaction.
I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?
i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones.
not discounting the assertion that an actual american invasion wouldn't have produced its own problems and resentments.
+14
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.
If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
So instead we should pick the greater evil?
Only if you think that voting for a third party is equivalent to voting for a Republican. I don't buy that line of reasoning, but ymmv.
My point is that she's not a lesser evil, especially if you voted for Obama twice, which if I recall, you did. She's a slightly less good than Obama, because she'll probably have one major unforced error in the Middle East.
I don't think she's only slightly less good than Obama, however. I think she is significantly less good than him, most especially because of her foreign policy. Which isn't to say I don't think she has positions that are very admirable, for instance, her original position on universal health care.
If you don't buy the reasoning that a 3rd party / abstain vote makes it easier for your least favored option to win, you either don't understand how the election process works or you don't understand math. This isn't a symmantic argument. For someone who favors the policies of the left, your three choices come down to:
1) Increase the likelihood of a Democrat winning by one vote (vote for them). The GOP now has one more vote to overcome.
2) Increase the likelihood of the Republican winning by half a vote (abstain/3rd party vote). The GOP now has one less vote to overcome.
3) increase the likelihood of the Republican winning by one vote (vote for them). The GOP now has one more vote.
These are your only choices. Yay FPTP!
And especially with the Green Party you claim to support as a backup, whose agenda specifically overlaps exclusively with Democrat voters. They aren't drawing from the disaffected ranks of the GOP to support an environmental legislation agenda.
No, the Green Party favors anti-nuclear hysteria, murdering children through neglect, and poaching.
Woah, really?
well, the first part of that is definitely true
a lot of people, especially those that lived through Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, are still really scared of nuclear power
part of that is justified, due to the fact that the companies that make and operate reactors haven't been putting a good-faith effort into making them safe, but just as many are opposed to nuclear power as a matter of course, because they believe that it is impossible to make safe
Yeah, I was refering more to the claim that the green party favors "murdering children through neglect". Seems like an odd stance and I was wondering if it was true or just hyperbole.
he was probably referencing various anti-vax bullshit that the green party variously holds up when convenient to who they're talking to.
Some Hillary Clinton supporters lay low, if they can
Of course, there are also thousands of Clinton supporters even in the middle of Bernieland.
Perhaps the most prominent is the city's popular mayor, Svante Myrick. Myrick made headlines in the New York Times and ABC News this spring for proposing to legalize heroin injection facilities within city limits.
But that hasn't shielded him from getting routinely criticized by Sanders fans, from the left, as a member of the Democratic establishment.
Within minutes of posting a story to Facebook about Chelsea Clinton coming to campaign in Ithaca, Myrick was inundated with dozens of critical comments. "My simple impression is that you are starstruck and your judgment is impaired," one person said. "Let us know if you can feel your heart when you are in her presence."
The attacks don't go unnoticed. Later on Sunday, I stood in line at Ithaca's organic grocery store — well, one of them, anyway — when I ran into a prominent local official who quietly confided that she can't wait for the primary to be over. She said she spent her Sunday morning reading through the angry comments on the mayor's Facebook feed, and admits the experience made her "incredibly anxious."
"I'm terrified of people here learning I'm voting for Hillary," she said, casting a furtive glance down an aisle of kombucha teas. "Please don't use my name. Seriously."
Some Hillary Clinton supporters lay low, if they can
Of course, there are also thousands of Clinton supporters even in the middle of Bernieland.
Perhaps the most prominent is the city's popular mayor, Svante Myrick. Myrick made headlines in the New York Times and ABC News this spring for proposing to legalize heroin injection facilities within city limits.
But that hasn't shielded him from getting routinely criticized by Sanders fans, from the left, as a member of the Democratic establishment.
Within minutes of posting a story to Facebook about Chelsea Clinton coming to campaign in Ithaca, Myrick was inundated with dozens of critical comments. "My simple impression is that you are starstruck and your judgment is impaired," one person said. "Let us know if you can feel your heart when you are in her presence."
The attacks don't go unnoticed. Later on Sunday, I stood in line at Ithaca's organic grocery store — well, one of them, anyway — when I ran into a prominent local official who quietly confided that she can't wait for the primary to be over. She said she spent her Sunday morning reading through the angry comments on the mayor's Facebook feed, and admits the experience made her "incredibly anxious."
"I'm terrified of people here learning I'm voting for Hillary," she said, casting a furtive glance down an aisle of kombucha teas. "Please don't use my name. Seriously."
Anecdotal, but my in-laws are Ithacans and their circle is almost entirely Hillary supporters.
Granted, their circle is all over 50.
But I think the fact that half the population is college students has more to do with the effect than that Ithaca is a commune.
Some Hillary Clinton supporters lay low, if they can
Of course, there are also thousands of Clinton supporters even in the middle of Bernieland.
Perhaps the most prominent is the city's popular mayor, Svante Myrick. Myrick made headlines in the New York Times and ABC News this spring for proposing to legalize heroin injection facilities within city limits.
But that hasn't shielded him from getting routinely criticized by Sanders fans, from the left, as a member of the Democratic establishment.
Within minutes of posting a story to Facebook about Chelsea Clinton coming to campaign in Ithaca, Myrick was inundated with dozens of critical comments. "My simple impression is that you are starstruck and your judgment is impaired," one person said. "Let us know if you can feel your heart when you are in her presence."
The attacks don't go unnoticed. Later on Sunday, I stood in line at Ithaca's organic grocery store — well, one of them, anyway — when I ran into a prominent local official who quietly confided that she can't wait for the primary to be over. She said she spent her Sunday morning reading through the angry comments on the mayor's Facebook feed, and admits the experience made her "incredibly anxious."
"I'm terrified of people here learning I'm voting for Hillary," she said, casting a furtive glance down an aisle of kombucha teas. "Please don't use my name. Seriously."
Anecdotal, but my in-laws are Ithacans and their circle is almost entirely Hillary supporters.
Granted, their circle is all over 50.
But I think the fact that half the population is college students has more to do with the effect than that Ithaca is a commune.
I think the youngest person mentioned in that article was in their 40s. 50-70 is well represented in the interviewee sampling.
Some Hillary Clinton supporters lay low, if they can
Of course, there are also thousands of Clinton supporters even in the middle of Bernieland.
Perhaps the most prominent is the city's popular mayor, Svante Myrick. Myrick made headlines in the New York Times and ABC News this spring for proposing to legalize heroin injection facilities within city limits.
But that hasn't shielded him from getting routinely criticized by Sanders fans, from the left, as a member of the Democratic establishment.
Within minutes of posting a story to Facebook about Chelsea Clinton coming to campaign in Ithaca, Myrick was inundated with dozens of critical comments. "My simple impression is that you are starstruck and your judgment is impaired," one person said. "Let us know if you can feel your heart when you are in her presence."
The attacks don't go unnoticed. Later on Sunday, I stood in line at Ithaca's organic grocery store — well, one of them, anyway — when I ran into a prominent local official who quietly confided that she can't wait for the primary to be over. She said she spent her Sunday morning reading through the angry comments on the mayor's Facebook feed, and admits the experience made her "incredibly anxious."
"I'm terrified of people here learning I'm voting for Hillary," she said, casting a furtive glance down an aisle of kombucha teas. "Please don't use my name. Seriously."
Anecdotal, but my in-laws are Ithacans and their circle is almost entirely Hillary supporters.
Granted, their circle is all over 50.
But I think the fact that half the population is college students has more to do with the effect than that Ithaca is a commune.
I think the youngest person mentioned in that article was in their 40s. 50-70 is well represented in the interviewee sampling.
I was amazed how old all the interviewees were, only one person was 30.
Some Hillary Clinton supporters lay low, if they can
Of course, there are also thousands of Clinton supporters even in the middle of Bernieland.
Perhaps the most prominent is the city's popular mayor, Svante Myrick. Myrick made headlines in the New York Times and ABC News this spring for proposing to legalize heroin injection facilities within city limits.
But that hasn't shielded him from getting routinely criticized by Sanders fans, from the left, as a member of the Democratic establishment.
Within minutes of posting a story to Facebook about Chelsea Clinton coming to campaign in Ithaca, Myrick was inundated with dozens of critical comments. "My simple impression is that you are starstruck and your judgment is impaired," one person said. "Let us know if you can feel your heart when you are in her presence."
The attacks don't go unnoticed. Later on Sunday, I stood in line at Ithaca's organic grocery store — well, one of them, anyway — when I ran into a prominent local official who quietly confided that she can't wait for the primary to be over. She said she spent her Sunday morning reading through the angry comments on the mayor's Facebook feed, and admits the experience made her "incredibly anxious."
"I'm terrified of people here learning I'm voting for Hillary," she said, casting a furtive glance down an aisle of kombucha teas. "Please don't use my name. Seriously."
Anecdotal, but my in-laws are Ithacans and their circle is almost entirely Hillary supporters.
Granted, their circle is all over 50.
But I think the fact that half the population is college students has more to do with the effect than that Ithaca is a commune.
I think the youngest person mentioned in that article was in their 40s. 50-70 is well represented in the interviewee sampling.
In an article designed to paint a picture of Ithaca in a certain way.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Some Hillary Clinton supporters lay low, if they can
Of course, there are also thousands of Clinton supporters even in the middle of Bernieland.
Perhaps the most prominent is the city's popular mayor, Svante Myrick. Myrick made headlines in the New York Times and ABC News this spring for proposing to legalize heroin injection facilities within city limits.
But that hasn't shielded him from getting routinely criticized by Sanders fans, from the left, as a member of the Democratic establishment.
Within minutes of posting a story to Facebook about Chelsea Clinton coming to campaign in Ithaca, Myrick was inundated with dozens of critical comments. "My simple impression is that you are starstruck and your judgment is impaired," one person said. "Let us know if you can feel your heart when you are in her presence."
The attacks don't go unnoticed. Later on Sunday, I stood in line at Ithaca's organic grocery store — well, one of them, anyway — when I ran into a prominent local official who quietly confided that she can't wait for the primary to be over. She said she spent her Sunday morning reading through the angry comments on the mayor's Facebook feed, and admits the experience made her "incredibly anxious."
"I'm terrified of people here learning I'm voting for Hillary," she said, casting a furtive glance down an aisle of kombucha teas. "Please don't use my name. Seriously."
Of course i'm a member of the Democratic Establishment. I'm a fucking mayor! I'm an actual elected official who does actual things!
Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.
so, yes, there are costs to inaction
but also costs to interference
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
Not every bad thing that happens is realistically preventable or should be seen as some cost of action vs inaction.
I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?
i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones.
not discounting the assertion that an actual american invasion wouldn't have produced its own problems and resentments.
Your positive belief is based on what, though? Have you spoken with refugees and/or other victims of sectarian violence who say, "I wish the Americans would have invaded & intervened," ?
Like I said before, do you have a source that supports this claim?
With Love and Courage
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.
so, yes, there are costs to inaction
but also costs to interference
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
Not every bad thing that happens is realistically preventable or should be seen as some cost of action vs inaction.
I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?
i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones.
not discounting the assertion that an actual american invasion wouldn't have produced its own problems and resentments.
Your positive belief is based on what, though? Have you spoken with refugees and/or other victims of sectarian violence who say, "I wish the Americans would have invaded & intervened," ?
Like I said before, do you have a source that supports this claim?
you change the claim every time he makes it
+5
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.
so, yes, there are costs to inaction
but also costs to interference
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
Not every bad thing that happens is realistically preventable or should be seen as some cost of action vs inaction.
I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?
i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones.
not discounting the assertion that an actual american invasion wouldn't have produced its own problems and resentments.
Your positive belief is based on what, though? Have you spoken with refugees and/or other victims of sectarian violence who say, "I wish the Americans would have invaded & intervened," ?
Like I said before, do you have a source that supports this claim?
Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.
so, yes, there are costs to inaction
but also costs to interference
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
Not every bad thing that happens is realistically preventable or should be seen as some cost of action vs inaction.
I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?
i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones.
not discounting the assertion that an actual american invasion wouldn't have produced its own problems and resentments.
Your positive belief is based on what, though? Have you spoken with refugees and/or other victims of sectarian violence who say, "I wish the Americans would have invaded & intervened," ?
Like I said before, do you have a source that supports this claim?
every time anything goes wrong in the world, there are calls for american intervention from all corners
and every time america intervenes there are calls from all corners criticising the intervention
it's not rocket science. this is how the world works.
Clinton is criticized by the Bernie camp for advocating in intervention during the rebellion in Libya (along with the rest of NATO) and for not advocating for intervention when the Honduran President was legally ousted by his government. If she had done the opposite in each, she'd be criticized just as much
Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.
so, yes, there are costs to inaction
but also costs to interference
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
Not every bad thing that happens is realistically preventable or should be seen as some cost of action vs inaction.
I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?
i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones.
not discounting the assertion that an actual american invasion wouldn't have produced its own problems and resentments.
Your positive belief is based on what, though? Have you spoken with refugees and/or other victims of sectarian violence who say, "I wish the Americans would have invaded & intervened," ?
Like I said before, do you have a source that supports this claim?
you change the claim every time he makes it
I don't think I am?
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
This suggests there is some significant number of Syrians who resent that there was no U.S. intervention (an intervention which would almost necessarily involve an invasion / bombing campaign).
I posit that no such body of persons & associated resentment exists; that such a body is the invention strictly of U.S. interests who wish to justify via proxy a given casus belli, without even giving that proxy a chance to speak for themselves on the matter.
With Love and Courage
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Some Hillary Clinton supporters lay low, if they can
Of course, there are also thousands of Clinton supporters even in the middle of Bernieland.
Perhaps the most prominent is the city's popular mayor, Svante Myrick. Myrick made headlines in the New York Times and ABC News this spring for proposing to legalize heroin injection facilities within city limits.
But that hasn't shielded him from getting routinely criticized by Sanders fans, from the left, as a member of the Democratic establishment.
Within minutes of posting a story to Facebook about Chelsea Clinton coming to campaign in Ithaca, Myrick was inundated with dozens of critical comments. "My simple impression is that you are starstruck and your judgment is impaired," one person said. "Let us know if you can feel your heart when you are in her presence."
The attacks don't go unnoticed. Later on Sunday, I stood in line at Ithaca's organic grocery store — well, one of them, anyway — when I ran into a prominent local official who quietly confided that she can't wait for the primary to be over. She said she spent her Sunday morning reading through the angry comments on the mayor's Facebook feed, and admits the experience made her "incredibly anxious."
"I'm terrified of people here learning I'm voting for Hillary," she said, casting a furtive glance down an aisle of kombucha teas. "Please don't use my name. Seriously."
Of course i'm a member of the Democratic Establishment. I'm a fucking mayor! I'm an actual elected official who does actual things!
Goddamn I do love this community.
+2
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.
so, yes, there are costs to inaction
but also costs to interference
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
Not every bad thing that happens is realistically preventable or should be seen as some cost of action vs inaction.
I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?
i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones.
not discounting the assertion that an actual american invasion wouldn't have produced its own problems and resentments.
Your positive belief is based on what, though? Have you spoken with refugees and/or other victims of sectarian violence who say, "I wish the Americans would have invaded & intervened," ?
Like I said before, do you have a source that supports this claim?
you change the claim every time he makes it
I don't think I am?
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
This suggests there is some significant number of Syrians who resent that there was no U.S. intervention (an intervention which would almost necessarily involve an invasion / bombing campaign).
I posit that no such body of persons & associated resentment exists; that such a body is the invention strictly of U.S. interests who wish to justify via proxy a given casus belli, without even giving that proxy a chance to speak for themselves on the matter.
"I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?"
and
"I wish the Americans would have invaded & intervened," in response to "i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones."
Posts
This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.
I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"
well, the first part of that is definitely true
a lot of people, especially those that lived through Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, are still really scared of nuclear power
part of that is justified, due to the fact that the companies that make and operate reactors haven't been putting a good-faith effort into making them safe, but just as many are opposed to nuclear power as a matter of course, because they believe that it is impossible to make safe
It is not inconsistent with the electoral process. A party that is winning doesn't change. So if Clinton wins, there is no incentive for the party to move left. The democratic party is moving right by nominating Clinton. Voting for Clinton is a vote to move the Democratic party right.
It is like an optimization problem, where you are prevented from moving toward the global maxima by an interposed minima. So your optimizer keeps moving in the wrong direction. You can't fix that by just repeating the same operation that got you to that spot over and over-which is what the 'at least it's not the GoP' voting heuristic is.
No it's not. At least I don't see it that way. Her platform isn't that from what I've seen.
Thousands of innocent people are dying in Syria right now. We could probably stop it from happening, but it might start WW3, among other things.
Foreign Policy is generally a buffet of awful choices, and the work is to make them at least somewhat less awful. Now, that isn't to say you can't make out right bad decisions. But rarely can you make good ones. And when you can, they are extremely fucking difficult, and never assured.
Clinton's platform is to the left of Obama's on all points except maybe Foreign Policy. You are either misinformed or arguing in bad faith.
Speaking of information, where are my exit polls, New York?! GET ON IT!!
That would only be true if she didn't want to win next time.
The delusion is real inside the campaign
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Why does that light-bright Bernie sign have a uterus on it?
Yes; and the culpability for that remains in the hands of the murderers. It is not somehow applied to every nation that does not wish to engage in adventurism, trying to somehow stop violence with more violence.
Is it not interesting to you that the only people who make this argument are white people living in America with no family in the Persian Gulf? That anyone with skin in the game advises extreme caution and condemns the adventurism? It was interesting enough to me, personally, that I changed my own opinions on the matter a few years ago, realizing that the people actually living & dying in Iran / Iraq / Afghanistan do not want the adventurism to continue and are not looking for western saviors. The only people that want that are the people doing the killing & a few misguided souls paving the road to Hell with their noble intentions.
It's Ithaca. I came from Portland, OR and went to Cornell, and even I was like "Whoa, this place is full of crazy-ass hippies." They elected a mayor who can't even legally rent a car. By almost twice the votes as the second place person. I'm fairly convinced that if Cornell and Ithaca College didn't exist, it'd take approximately two years before the whole thing had morphed into a commune.
there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.
so, yes, there are costs to inaction
but also costs to interference
it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.
The Democratic Party was the dominant party from 1938-1980 at the very least. It changed radically over that period of time. The idea that only losing parties change is baseless
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
i hope it's not seen that way from actually inside the sanders campaign (as opposed to the ithaca field office)
who am i kidding, though? every single example of this sort of thing i've encountered over the past 20 years, the retrospective was always "yeah, they all started believing their own spin"
It also completely ignores the right, who's been kicking our butts in Congress but is doing so by running more and more to the right to the point of fucking collapse.
Democrats tend to court centrists because they show up and vote. The reality is they have a vested interest in making those who routinely support them happy, which means they're going to go with whomever gives them the best shot at winning.
Does reality, in this case, suck? It sure does. But the way to address this is for liberals and progressives to engage and show they need to be courted. Primary all you want and push your message, but when it comes down to actual elections you have to show up and vote, even if your guy didn't get the nomination.
Both parties involved (Dems and voters) have a shared responsibility in this. From what I can see, the Dem party is at least fulfilling their part, as Hilary has been pushing for progressive policy during her campaign. Some may feel it's not enough, and that's fair, but the Dems will never push for progressive policy if progressives don't make themselves a voting bloc worth courting. Not voting or protest voting in the general election is just going to demonstrate that your vote, along with your concerns, are safe to ignore.
You and your in this post used in the general sense, of course. Not aimed at anyone in particular.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I mean, the scuttlebutt is that Romney never wrote a concession speech he was so sure he was going to win. On election night he probably had a 10% chance at best. It's the nature of being around this sort of machine for too long.
Not every bad thing that happens is realistically preventable or should be seen as some cost of action vs inaction.
I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?
The party moves during primaries in response to polling of and lobbying by its base. It also moves slightly in elections based on the r-d spread.
It doesn't shift left because of third party turnout. People that vote third party cannot be reliably turned to the major parties by changes in platform because no move will be sufficient that doesn't alienate the center, which is most of the country. Third party results are effectively ignored for strategic planning purposes.
Meanwhile Sarah Palin wanted to give the concession speech. No, Sarah, that's not how it works. lol
Yeah, I was refering more to the claim that the green party favors "murdering children through neglect". Seems like an odd stance and I was wondering if it was true or just hyperbole.
my theory on the centrist tendency in the democratic party is basically the theory of regression to the mean. the party is basically a coalition party made up of groups of people who have a deep and abiding investment in a focused area. they're interested in support for labor unions. or public service unions. or urban poverty. or rural poverty. or income redistribution. or gay equality. or women's issues. or latino issues. or church and state issues. or medicare. or socialized medicine. or senior issues.
but the thing is that, outside of their specific issues, most of the people in the coalition are probably fairly moderate on the others. and given the way a coalition works, each issue ends up getting compromised with the overall view, and prioritized according to the power of each coalition member.
so, you know, "The Democratic Party" isn't representing the issue you really care about to the degree you think it should is basically "working as intended" for a coalition party. It doesn't mean you shouldn't work to get your issues more attention or priority, but bolting the party because it's not exactly everything you believe in the order of priority you believe it is just foolish.
i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones.
not discounting the assertion that an actual american invasion wouldn't have produced its own problems and resentments.
he was probably referencing various anti-vax bullshit that the green party variously holds up when convenient to who they're talking to.
Anecdotal, but my in-laws are Ithacans and their circle is almost entirely Hillary supporters.
Granted, their circle is all over 50.
But I think the fact that half the population is college students has more to do with the effect than that Ithaca is a commune.
I think the youngest person mentioned in that article was in their 40s. 50-70 is well represented in the interviewee sampling.
I was amazed how old all the interviewees were, only one person was 30.
In an article designed to paint a picture of Ithaca in a certain way.
Of course i'm a member of the Democratic Establishment. I'm a fucking mayor! I'm an actual elected official who does actual things!
Your positive belief is based on what, though? Have you spoken with refugees and/or other victims of sectarian violence who say, "I wish the Americans would have invaded & intervened," ?
Like I said before, do you have a source that supports this claim?
you change the claim every time he makes it
so look this was the first google hit i found
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/world/meast/syria-unrest/
do you really believe that there aren't more?
every time anything goes wrong in the world, there are calls for american intervention from all corners
and every time america intervenes there are calls from all corners criticising the intervention
it's not rocket science. this is how the world works.
Clinton is criticized by the Bernie camp for advocating in intervention during the rebellion in Libya (along with the rest of NATO) and for not advocating for intervention when the Honduran President was legally ousted by his government. If she had done the opposite in each, she'd be criticized just as much
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I don't think I am?
This suggests there is some significant number of Syrians who resent that there was no U.S. intervention (an intervention which would almost necessarily involve an invasion / bombing campaign).
I posit that no such body of persons & associated resentment exists; that such a body is the invention strictly of U.S. interests who wish to justify via proxy a given casus belli, without even giving that proxy a chance to speak for themselves on the matter.
Goddamn I do love this community.
"I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?"
and
"I wish the Americans would have invaded & intervened," in response to "i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+