ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
I don't think It's a terrible decision for a third party to start with presidential campaigns and work downward.
Perot did that with what became the Reform party and it did, of course, elect a governor before the national ticket turned into a Grade-A clown show in 2000. The fact that they had a hugely popular presidential candidate in 1992 (yeah, it wasn't a party in 1992 yet, I know.) and 1996 had a huge impact on that. The problem that they ran into is that in the absence of someone like a Perot, what is the party about? Is it the 2000 version that runs Pat Buchanan? Is it the 2004 version that accepts Ralph Nader as some sort of Green Party refugee?
The Green party doesn't quite seem to know what It's all about yet. The only way to have a national platform is a national candidate, and a national candidate helps you win downticket. National candidates are also better at fundraising, which can result in donations down ticket if done properly.
What happens when you don't have a consistent platform? You go full reform party. You end up with all sorts of people who just like the idea of being in a third party and no real platform. Donald Trump might not be the most principled person in the world, but he figured this out sixteen years ago. To quote the man himself:
"So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Many Americans are rightfully scared shitless of Donald Trump; in particular marginalized people. But for many of us, we do not have the privilege of it being the first time we are truly afraid for our lives.
And because I am afraid of Donald Trump, I am expected to vote for Hillary. As if I am not scared of Hillary Clinton as President. But I am; in fact, many marginalized people are rightfully horrified of Hillary Clinton.
...
If you’re going to vote for Hillary to stop Trump, at least be fucking honest and stop pretending like you’re some heroic person while you vote for somebody that is going to destroy marginalized communities, put marginalized people at risk and murder marginalized people around the globe.
That article is some grade A horseshit.
I... actually kind of agree. To an extent.
Trump is an edge case, but a lot of people vote Democrat because they believe that it is better for people other than themselves. A lot of Democrat voters could happily vote Republican and take a tax cut, be better off and not suffer a single negative consequence. Indeed, the Republican party has often targeted these people and said hey, vote for us and it'll be better for you. But they don't, they vote Democrat (and would be horrified at the idea of voting Republican) because they believe it is better for those other than themselves, marginalised and disenfranchised people. And many of those people would like the Democrats to go further, and would prefer to vote for a legitimate candidate to the left of the Dems, but don't because it's a two party system at the end of the day.
I think it's acceptable to say, hey Hillary Clinton's presidency will be bad for me and mine. Sure, say that. I agree with that, in respect of certain people. You hundred percent have my support in that. But to say that people are voting for Hillary just because Trump suddenly proposes a direct threat to them is actually horseshit. Lots and lots of people vote on morals rather than what threatens them personally. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I understand that woman's anger and I don't blame her for saying some things which I don't agree with because she's angry, but I still disagree with some of those things.
Don't vote if you feel it's the right thing to do, because you refuse to tacitly endorse Clinton. But don't pretend that people who are voting for Clinton are all doing it through blind love for her, or self-interested fear of Trump. To use an analogy, I'm considerably better off with the Tories in power in the UK. I earn enough money that I could pay for private healthcare, and buy my own place, and such like. But I will never vote Tory, I'll always vote against my own interest to protect those who are more vulnerable. And I will not pretend that the person I vote for is perfect, but I will vote for someone who I think has the best chance of doing some good, or at least does less evil should that be the only option.
I mean, the worst case hell scape scenario is the Republicans delay the Supreme Court Justice past the election and Trump wins, which means we'd have at least one Trump Justice on the bench.
And oh what nightmares would await us.
I'm not convinced the Supreme Court as an institution would survive a Trump term
I wonder what the fascists are gonna do if Trump loses
Or what Trump is gonna do, surely not just go away
someone will step up to fill the void if Trump loses, because a Trump loss ain't exactly gonna make the people who think they're losing their country go "welp guess that's it, then, time to close up shop"
I doubt Trump would run again, but he'll end up somewhere on TV. he's not just gonna wander off into the sunset
I wonder what the fascists are gonna do if Trump loses
Or what Trump is gonna do, surely not just go away
someone will step up to fill the void if Trump loses, because a Trump loss ain't exactly gonna make the people who think they're losing their country go "welp guess that's it, then, time to close up shop"
I doubt Trump would run again, but he'll end up somewhere on TV. he's not just gonna wander off into the sunset
I wonder what the fascists are gonna do if Trump loses
They aren't going to slink back into the shadows, that's for sure.
It really depends on how the Republican party deals with a Trump loss though. By that point their base will have been drinking the trump-aid for 4+ months; there might not be any going back to how things were.
I can't even pretend to support anybody who gives antivaxxers even the time of day, let alone support in their platform.
agree. just countering the myth that Third Parties aren't doing ground work, because they definitely are out there, and Dems and the GOP both need to evolve or steadily lose votes.
This claim seems to be the primary argument of the essay and yet they do not cite any actual reason why they would feel unsafe due to Clinton's policies besides "drone warfare", which has nothing to do with immigrants and marginalized people within the United States.
what? drone warfare drives: 1) extrajudicial killings, which is bad no matter what; 2) instability abroad, leading to refugees trying to come to the U.S., and 3) anti-U.S. sentiment fueling terrorism. these things are entirely connected.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I mean, the worst case hell scape scenario is the Republicans delay the Supreme Court Justice past the election and Trump wins, which means we'd have at least one Trump Justice on the bench.
And oh what nightmares would await us.
I'm not convinced the Supreme Court as an institution would survive a Trump term
maybe I'm getting hyperbolic
I dunno what counts as hyperbole when talking about a theorhetical Trump presidency.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
+2
Options
FFOnce Upon a TimeIn OaklandRegistered Userregular
edited July 2016
How about this for reasoning re: vote for Hillary vs. Trump. It's not so much about what power the President holds, but with who's currently in the House and Senate. I think this part gets ignored/forgotten many times.
With Hillary you're going to at least have somebody willing to veto any truly horrific legislation brought forth by Congress. Seeing as how Republicans currently are able to control both the House and Senate, I can easily imagine quite a few bills which are solely aimed at further marginalizing people who are already marginalized, upping military spending, cutting social programs, or downright removing basic human rights, to be rubber-stamped if Trump is President. Think Bush jr.
I don't like the idea of Hillary as President, as I don't see a lot of (or maybe any) forward movement during her administration especially with a Republican controlled Congress. Maybe this changes in two years, depending on what happens at a local level.
But with Trump as President, with a Republican controlled Congress...I don't want to see how much damage can be done in two years, including other issues like Supreme Court Appointments. That shit is loooooong term.
I thought about it and the reason why I personally get touchy about criticism of hillary is because there's so much flat out non truths about her out there. we just had literally hate on hillary: the convention. so while there are real criticisms out there it all gets blended together with all the noise that we constantly hear about her that is affecting how people see her
I'd love to know what existential threat Clinton poses to people of colour, QUILTBAG folk and immigrants. The Supreme Court nominations alone mean that potentially we could see state and federal protections for just those groups being passed, and then approved by the Supreme Court when challenged.
If Trump wins? Every progressive law passed in the last 30 years is going bye bye, including abortion rights.
I mean, the worst case hell scape scenario is the Republicans delay the Supreme Court Justice past the election and Trump wins, which means we'd have at least one Trump Justice on the bench.
And oh what nightmares would await us.
Justice Palin will bring her firebrand smarts to those other justice squares, you betcha!
This claim seems to be the primary argument of the essay and yet they do not cite any actual reason why they would feel unsafe due to Clinton's policies besides "drone warfare", which has nothing to do with immigrants and marginalized people within the United States.
what? drone warfare drives: 1) extrajudicial killings, which is bad no matter what; 2) instability abroad, leading to refugees trying to come to the U.S., and 3) anti-U.S. sentiment fueling terrorism. these things are entirely connected.
Yes, those things are bad. But I fail to see the direct connection between them and this person claiming that they specifically make marginalized people and immigrants within the US feel unsafe.
my dad is literally begging me to take him to the new dnesh dsouza movie
it is the first time he's wanted to leave the house in
i don't even know how long
my options are to be a terrible son or two expose myself to two full hours of intellectually bankrupt hate-filled nonsense
just
fuckin'
great
Clamber over cinema patrons hunting pokkymons while wearing an Obama tee.
+3
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
At this point I partially want to vote for Hillary just to see her primaried into oblivion in 2020.
Clinton would have to fuck up pretty bad to not be easily renominated
famous last fords.
wait did I say fords? I meant words.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
0
Options
PwnanObrienHe's right, life sucks.Registered Userregular
For me, antivaxxing, like homeopathy is a red flag that make me look for larger problems of anti-intellectualism. You have to ignore facts and science to be an antivaxxer.
EDIT: Even then, I'd vote for an anti-vaxxer who had an otherwise decent platform, over Trump.
Undead Scottsman on
+16
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
Shit. We could have spent twenty minutes and done better than a folding chair of honor.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I can't even pretend to support anybody who gives antivaxxers even the time of day, let alone support in their platform.
agree. just countering the myth that Third Parties aren't doing ground work, because they definitely are out there, and Dems and the GOP both need to evolve or steadily lose votes.
They have been evolving. The Dems of today are not on the same platform as they were when Obama was up to bat, and the GOP has used a Tea-Party stone to evolve into a Weezing that spits out racism and bile.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Posts
Perot did that with what became the Reform party and it did, of course, elect a governor before the national ticket turned into a Grade-A clown show in 2000. The fact that they had a hugely popular presidential candidate in 1992 (yeah, it wasn't a party in 1992 yet, I know.) and 1996 had a huge impact on that. The problem that they ran into is that in the absence of someone like a Perot, what is the party about? Is it the 2000 version that runs Pat Buchanan? Is it the 2004 version that accepts Ralph Nader as some sort of Green Party refugee?
The Green party doesn't quite seem to know what It's all about yet. The only way to have a national platform is a national candidate, and a national candidate helps you win downticket. National candidates are also better at fundraising, which can result in donations down ticket if done properly.
What happens when you don't have a consistent platform? You go full reform party. You end up with all sorts of people who just like the idea of being in a third party and no real platform. Donald Trump might not be the most principled person in the world, but he figured this out sixteen years ago. To quote the man himself:
"So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Or what Trump is gonna do, surely not just go away
I... actually kind of agree. To an extent.
Trump is an edge case, but a lot of people vote Democrat because they believe that it is better for people other than themselves. A lot of Democrat voters could happily vote Republican and take a tax cut, be better off and not suffer a single negative consequence. Indeed, the Republican party has often targeted these people and said hey, vote for us and it'll be better for you. But they don't, they vote Democrat (and would be horrified at the idea of voting Republican) because they believe it is better for those other than themselves, marginalised and disenfranchised people. And many of those people would like the Democrats to go further, and would prefer to vote for a legitimate candidate to the left of the Dems, but don't because it's a two party system at the end of the day.
I think it's acceptable to say, hey Hillary Clinton's presidency will be bad for me and mine. Sure, say that. I agree with that, in respect of certain people. You hundred percent have my support in that. But to say that people are voting for Hillary just because Trump suddenly proposes a direct threat to them is actually horseshit. Lots and lots of people vote on morals rather than what threatens them personally. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I understand that woman's anger and I don't blame her for saying some things which I don't agree with because she's angry, but I still disagree with some of those things.
Don't vote if you feel it's the right thing to do, because you refuse to tacitly endorse Clinton. But don't pretend that people who are voting for Clinton are all doing it through blind love for her, or self-interested fear of Trump. To use an analogy, I'm considerably better off with the Tories in power in the UK. I earn enough money that I could pay for private healthcare, and buy my own place, and such like. But I will never vote Tory, I'll always vote against my own interest to protect those who are more vulnerable. And I will not pretend that the person I vote for is perfect, but I will vote for someone who I think has the best chance of doing some good, or at least does less evil should that be the only option.
I'm not convinced the Supreme Court as an institution would survive a Trump term
maybe I'm getting hyperbolic
someone will step up to fill the void if Trump loses, because a Trump loss ain't exactly gonna make the people who think they're losing their country go "welp guess that's it, then, time to close up shop"
I doubt Trump would run again, but he'll end up somewhere on TV. he's not just gonna wander off into the sunset
Neither of those things should be considered acceptable.
He is going to sue the voting public.
Battle.net:Ritalynn#1974
XBL: Tranewrek
They aren't going to slink back into the shadows, that's for sure.
It really depends on how the Republican party deals with a Trump loss though. By that point their base will have been drinking the trump-aid for 4+ months; there might not be any going back to how things were.
agree. just countering the myth that Third Parties aren't doing ground work, because they definitely are out there, and Dems and the GOP both need to evolve or steadily lose votes.
what? drone warfare drives: 1) extrajudicial killings, which is bad no matter what; 2) instability abroad, leading to refugees trying to come to the U.S., and 3) anti-U.S. sentiment fueling terrorism. these things are entirely connected.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
my dad is literally begging me to take him to the new dnesh dsouza movie
it is the first time he's wanted to leave the house in
i don't even know how long
my options are to be a terrible son or two expose myself to two full hours of intellectually bankrupt hate-filled nonsense
just
fuckin'
great
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I dunno what counts as hyperbole when talking about a theorhetical Trump presidency.
With Hillary you're going to at least have somebody willing to veto any truly horrific legislation brought forth by Congress. Seeing as how Republicans currently are able to control both the House and Senate, I can easily imagine quite a few bills which are solely aimed at further marginalizing people who are already marginalized, upping military spending, cutting social programs, or downright removing basic human rights, to be rubber-stamped if Trump is President. Think Bush jr.
I don't like the idea of Hillary as President, as I don't see a lot of (or maybe any) forward movement during her administration especially with a Republican controlled Congress. Maybe this changes in two years, depending on what happens at a local level.
But with Trump as President, with a Republican controlled Congress...I don't want to see how much damage can be done in two years, including other issues like Supreme Court Appointments. That shit is loooooong term.
Breathe a solitary sigh of relief and then spend the next four years yelling and grumbling to try and keep his base for his own ego.
Outside chance he refuses to endorse whoever the next Republican candidate is because it's not him.
POTUS can't conceivably be expected to 100% eradicate hate crimes. We've had laws specifically against that for decades, and yet they still occur.
They can, however, absolutely incite hate crimes, which is what one candidate is actively doing.
any way you can tell him you're taking him to that movie and then just bring him to, like, Ghostbusters?
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
If Trump wins? Every progressive law passed in the last 30 years is going bye bye, including abortion rights.
Hoddie + iPod + earbuds? Or is he one of those people that like to talk during the movie?
Edit: Or maybe try bribing the box office workers to pretend it's sold out?
Justice Palin will bring her firebrand smarts to those other justice squares, you betcha!
I'm almost as frightened by the thought of what his fans would do if he loses as I am by what he'd do if he wins.
There's nothing about refusing to see some tripe that he knows you don't care for or agree with that makes you a bad son, let alone a terrible one.
Get some of them nose cancelling earbuds and listen to the giant beastcast while staring at the ceiling
Yes, those things are bad. But I fail to see the direct connection between them and this person claiming that they specifically make marginalized people and immigrants within the US feel unsafe.
the man watches fox news like some people watch their favorite sports teams
he listens to talk radio like some people listen to music
this movie is a bigger deal to him than Star Wars was to 95% of the general public
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Clinton would have to fuck up pretty bad to not be easily renominated
Clamber over cinema patrons hunting pokkymons while wearing an Obama tee.
Not when mecha-Bernie is created when the futurenauts use their tech to create a kaiju capable of taking on the Hilldawg in mortal combat
No don't do this. Your nose is a crucial factor in your ability to breathe properly. Do not cancel it.
famous last fords.
wait did I say fords? I meant words.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I'm much more comfortable with that broken democratic process than trying to survive four years of Trump though.
For me, antivaxxing, like homeopathy is a red flag that make me look for larger problems of anti-intellectualism. You have to ignore facts and science to be an antivaxxer.
EDIT: Even then, I'd vote for an anti-vaxxer who had an otherwise decent platform, over Trump.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
They have been evolving. The Dems of today are not on the same platform as they were when Obama was up to bat, and the GOP has used a Tea-Party stone to evolve into a Weezing that spits out racism and bile.
I cannot understand people being socially liberal or whatever the language is and not voting for Hillary.
But third parties are not viable at the presidential level. Ross Perot maybe got Clinton elected. Nader probably got W elected.
that's the current Green Party in a nutshell, which turned me off once i started looking into them.
supposedly Jill Stein herself is not anti-vaccine, but her stance is really wishy-washy when called out on it.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Probably my fucking nothing. Definitely. The margin was razor fucking thin. It is a definite.