The High Price of the Politics of Petulance

[bilby]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-high-price-of-the-politics-of-petulance.html

Great article, IMHO. The Bernie or Bust crowd could give us Trump as a President.
SLD

Why?

Because they won't vote for HRC?

People who are voting for Trump also are not voting for HRC and are ACTUALLY VOTING FOR TRUMP.

Wouldn't a Trump preisidency be the fault of people who voted FOR Trump?

Those people want a Trump Presidency. The issue is for those of us trying to stop him how do we do it? I doubt we'll have much luck convincing trump supporters, more than a handful, to abandon him. The failure of those on the left to rally behind Clinton could allow a minority to elect a proto-fascist. The implications of a Trump presidency are too horrible to contemplate - not just for the U.S., but for the world. If you truly value this nation you will vote for Clinton. There's no other choice. You may not like her, but she's 65758 x better than Trump. Her policy proposal differ little from Bernie Sanders. You can fault her on many things. I get it. But the choice is truly between her or Trump. Complaining that she's not good enough is bullshit.

SLD

It seems to me that the two party system offers you a choice. You can choose to be shot in the head; OR you can choose to be shot in the foot. Of course, you have the absolute right not to make one of those choices - but if you do, the choice will be made on your behalf by a complete stranger.

I understand how you might want to refuse to choose to be shot in the foot. But given that that refusal leads to a real prospect that you will be shot in the head (and a best case scenario where you get shot in the foot anyway) I would suggest that such principled refusal is downright fucking stupid.

The rules do not allow you to opt out of playing the game; If you choose not to choose, a choice will still be made, but without your input. Of course you would rather not get shot at all. But that's not an option. Nobody will say 'Well, most eligible voters didn't vote at all, so we won't have a president for the next four years'. It doesn't work like that, and wishing it did won't make it so.

Those 95% of adults worldwide who don't get a choice (but who also don't get any protection from the actions of whoever becomes POTUS) look at you Americans humming and hawing over whether you should refuse to choose shooting us all in the foot as some kind of (completely ineffective) protest against the unpleasantness of both options with utter dismay. How could you NOT vote to get us all shot in the foot, when us all being shot in the head is the ONLY other possible outcome?? What the FUCK is wrong with you people???

I can understand how some people are so fucking stupid as to vote to be shot in the head. But I cannot grasp how anyone with enough wit to vote against being shot in the head would refuse to vote at all, because they don't like the idea of being shot in the foot. What part of 'two party system' do these idiots not manage to grasp?

 

[bilby]

How about if we just ask people who vote for third parties to not bitch about the environment or the supreme court? If a person is going to throw their vote away, don't complain if Trump uses a few nukes to settle a conflict or two.

The problem here is that in a free society people should be able to vote for and say what they want.

Then the USA is not, by that definition, a free society. In the US Presidential race, people have the right to vote for the Republican, or for the Democrat. Or they have the right to not vote, and to get a Republican or Democrat president without their input being considered at all.

There are lots of different ways of not voting - casting a ballot for Jill Stein, Mickey Mouse or the Tooth Fairy, for example; Or Staying home on election day drinking beer; Or drawing a picture of some genitals on your ballot paper (except in states with machine voting). All of these options amount to the same thing though. Jill Stein has exactly the same chance of becoming POTUS as the Tooth Fairy does.

To take this idea to it's logical conclusion, though, the better proposal would be to have the voters from the major parties not complain about anything unless they're able to prevent any defection to the opposing party or any registered party members from staying home.

Complaining doesn't enter into it. You can complain all you like - there is a two party system, so you get two candidates to choose from. Everything else is a distraction. A vote for a third candidate is indistinguishable in its effect from no vote at all. I am NOT saying that's how is should be; But that is how it is. You can't win a game by playing the rules you wish were in force - you have to play by the rules that ARE in force. No matter how much you dislike those rules.

 

[ksen]

do i?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[Deepak]

The problem here is that in a free society people should be able to vote for and say what they want.

Then the USA is not, by that definition, a free society. In the US Presidential race, people have the right to vote for the Republican, or for the Democrat. Or they have the right to not vote, and to get a Republican or Democrat president without their input being considered at all.

There are lots of different ways of not voting - casting a ballot for Jill Stein, Mickey Mouse or the Tooth Fairy, for example; Or Staying home on election day drinking beer; Or drawing a picture of some genitals on your ballot paper (except in states with machine voting). All of these options amount to the same thing though. Jill Stein has exactly the same chance of becoming POTUS as the Tooth Fairy does.

To take this idea to it's logical conclusion, though, the better proposal would be to have the voters from the major parties not complain about anything unless they're able to prevent any defection to the opposing party or any registered party members from staying home.

Complaining doesn't enter into it. You can complain all you like - there is a two party system, so you get two candidates to choose from. Everything else is a distraction. A vote for a third candidate is indistinguishable in its effect from no vote at all. I am NOT saying that's how is should be; But that is how it is. You can't win a game by playing the rules you wish were in force - you have to play by the rules that ARE in force. No matter how much you dislike those rules.

Being free to vote for who you want to vote for doesn't mean they have a remote chance of being elected.

The problem with this tack is that it effectively advocates for Trump as much as it does Clinton. I've floated the idea where votes are apportioned to a party-selected candidate based on party registration, which no one seemed to support but it's effectively what's being advocated in this thread, just in a less efficient way.

The Ds could of course treat the votes like they're actually in play, and try to make Clinton appealing to potential third party voters, but they instead browbeat people about 'stolen' votes and the party faithful throw those votes away.

And the other point that no one seems willing to address is that both in 2000 there were and in this election there will be more registered Ds who do not vote rather than those who vote for a third party. But the stick in people's ass is this tiny fraction of voters who will not fall in line.

A strategy where you rely on the dumb luck that your opponents run someone who's enough of a lunatic that it sends people running for the hills loses in the long run. All the Rs need to do in 2020 (or even 2016 on the longshot that Trump drops out) is run someone slightly less offensive, and the Ds are effective Tooth Fairies.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You know how things don't get changed? By continually saying "that's how it is". And to anyone who might try to bullshit their way out of this, sorry, that's just how it is.

 

[barbos]

None of the two ruling parties are interested in change. And people who finance them (WallStreet) are even less interested in change, they are perfectly fine with the current system where they pay small fee and get to do whatever the hell they want to do.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-high-price-of-the-politics-of-petulance.html

Great article, IMHO. The Bernie or Bust crowd could give us Trump as a President.
SLD

Why?

Because they won't vote for HRC?

People who are voting for Trump also are not voting for HRC and are ACTUALLY VOTING FOR TRUMP.

Wouldn't a Trump preisidency be the fault of people who voted FOR Trump?

Those people want a Trump Presidency. The issue is for those of us trying to stop him how do we do it? I doubt we'll have much luck convincing trump supporters, more than a handful, to abandon him. The failure of those on the left to rally behind Clinton could allow a minority to elect a proto-fascist. The implications of a Trump presidency are too horrible to contemplate - not just for the U.S., but for the world. If you truly value this nation you will vote for Clinton. There's no other choice. You may not like her, but she's 65758 x better than Trump. Her policy proposal differ little from Bernie Sanders. You can fault her on many things. I get it. But the choice is truly between her or Trump. Complaining that she's not good enough is bullshit.

SLD

It seems to me that the two party system offers you a choice. You can choose to be shot in the head; OR you can choose to be shot in the foot. Of course, you have the absolute right not to make one of those choices - but if you do, the choice will be made on your behalf by a complete stranger.

I understand how you might want to refuse to choose to be shot in the foot. But given that that refusal leads to a real prospect that you will be shot in the head (and a best case scenario where you get shot in the foot anyway) I would suggest that such principled refusal is downright fucking stupid.

The rules do not allow you to opt out of playing the game; If you choose not to choose, a choice will still be made, but without your input. Of course you would rather not get shot at all. But that's not an option. Nobody will say 'Well, most eligible voters didn't vote at all, so we won't have a president for the next four years'. It doesn't work like that, and wishing it did won't make it so.

Those 95% of adults worldwide who don't get a choice (but who also don't get any protection from the actions of whoever becomes POTUS) look at you Americans humming and hawing over whether you should refuse to choose shooting us all in the foot as some kind of (completely ineffective) protest against the unpleasantness of both options with utter dismay. How could you NOT vote to get us all shot in the foot, when us all being shot in the head is the ONLY other possible outcome?? What the FUCK is wrong with you people???

I can understand how some people are so fucking stupid as to vote to be shot in the head. But I cannot grasp how anyone with enough wit to vote against being shot in the head would refuse to vote at all, because they don't like the idea of being shot in the foot. What part of 'two party system' do these idiots not manage to grasp?

Well, it's not just being shot in the foot, but being shot in the foot and then dying a lingering and painful death from various infections and a case of gangrene.

 

[Harry Bosch]

None of the two ruling parties are interested in change. And people who finance them (WallStreet) are even less interested in change, they are perfectly fine with the current system where they pay small fee and get to do whatever the hell they want to do.

Not interested in change? That's crazy talk. The democrats have changed considerably to attract the left. They now favor significantly higher minimum wage, free community college, less international trade, expanding Dodd-Frank, expand social security, declaration that climate change is the central issue of our time, and etc. The Dems have moved signifcantly left to attract the Bernie voters. I've argued for years that dems should move more to the right to increase their base because moderates are more likely to vote their best interest than the far left. But the Dems didn't listen to me. I hope that they are correct and that Trump get pounded. But if the far left either doesn't vote or votes third party, I suspect that the dems will ignore them next election.

 

[ksen]

Until votes start being made in congress the Dems haven't moved anywhere. They've just engaged a new marketing tactic so far.

But good on them if they follow through.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk