It's also not feasible that your individual vote will have any impact in the election at all.
Why does one "not feasible" scenario bother you but the other one does not?
Never Hillary
- Thread starter Dr. Jones
- Start date
It's also not feasible that your individual vote will have any impact in the election at all.
Why does one "not feasible" scenario bother you but the other one does not?
I think she's corrupt, makes bad decisions, and will try to pass policies with which I strongly disagree. Is that reason enough to not vote for her?
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
The base line has been moved up, Siro. That's what needs to be explained. These new problems are a result of a higher expected base line for quality of life. 500 years ago it's sanitation. Sanitation is an expectation now and a mere afterthought. People don't expect the base line to drop and thus put their world view on higher objectives. Thus, "strong economy, copious scientific and technical output, and a wealthy population" is below the current baseline and not on the minds of anybody when it comes to the world's, and more specifically, the U.S.A's problems.
It's also a massive jail state, being world police, huge deficits, continued wars, terrible tax policies, failing Social Security, boon doggle on military spending, terrible immigration system... I'm aware some of the things I've mentioned overlap. Still a problem.
Restrictions?
We cannot collect rain water, weed, drink milk we farm/produce, restrictions on gardening on our own land, increasing gov. stewardship of massive amounts of American land, prohibiting hungry kids from eating school lunches over $...
You don't see this all as a problem, fine. I most certainly do. And I say this from a position of strength. My financial and economical foot print has tripled the last 2 years.
Good response. But who sets these baselines? One way is to look at what other developed countries are doing, and compare that to our way of doing things. In that regard, we're doing fairly well.
A strong economy and science are the two main ways for people to move forward technologically and ethically. The establishment has not really hindered that (again, I can only come to conclusions by comparison). The US policies have been fairly successful, and the American population is largely wealthy and comfortable. Consequently, we've been able to move forward with heightened awareness about the situation of those who have traditionally drawn the short end of the stick (LGBT, black people, Muslims, etc).
The workings of the society under the administration of establishment politicians have been fine. I'm sure a million people will have a million ideas on how to make things better. And I'm sure some of those suggestions will have a lot of validity in them.
But here we have 2 alternatives: an establishment politician (dishonest or not. I don't understand why people give a ****), or some a racist ignoramus who wants to isolate us from the rest of the world.
The choice is clear. There is no real equivalence between the two.
End the wars on drugs.
Fair enough. The prison population, and the draconian sentences the justice system imposes, are outrageous. But that's a reflection of what the people want. If people did not vote for politicians who spout "tough on crime" nonsense, we wouldn't be in this situation. So first and foremost, we should look at ourselves, and not the government. The establishment's main worry is to keep their jobs and power. Change the criteria for that, and you'll change the political environment.
We can argue about which regulations make sense and which don't. But many of these are not increased restrictions by the government. Weed for example has pretty much always been banned (unless we're taking a long historical view, which makes no sense in this context). It has been banned because the population at large saw it as some evil drug that's luring their children, and they worked to stop it. The view on marijuana has very recently become more liberal by the majority of Americans. Consequently, you're seeing a trend of legalization across the country.
Again, this is not a discussion about the best possible candidate. It's about the candidates we have. And an establishment candidate, with all the flaws of the establishment, is a million times better than Donald Dump.
I agree with this.
You can vote for however you like. I am addressing the question of whether the two candidates are the same. They are not. I'm not addressing whether either deserves your vote. That's a personal matter.
I agree. This is "our" fault. So I want to change it. Part of that, and the reason we are talking about it in this thread, is not putting the same people with the same ideas into power.
I disagree. They are certainly different but either way America loses. You disagree, I can respect that. But I won't fall in line. I think those that think like me are growing in number.
What is your point? I never said the two party system doesn't bother me in its current state. Stopping Trump takes precedence over a symbolic vote for a third-party candidate... that should be the emphasis throughout our country at this point. That doesn't negate the need for a shakeup in our government.
Just an additional point; I may have a different view of the government from some. I DON'T want a leader. I want an administrator and bureaucrat. I want someone who will act as a check on the people's worst/most irrational impulses, but I want them to be flexible enough to go with the flow as society's norms evolve. Hillary, imo, meets that bar, and thus, she gets my vote.
Siro, your posts here prove you to be a eminently reasonable fellow.
Yeah, you missed my point. My question is, why is a symbolic vote for Clinton more appealing to you than a symbolic vote for a third-party candidate? They both will have exactly the same impact on the election (i.e., none). I'm interested in your answer to that.
Surely no one vote has a meaningful impact on the elections, in a country with over 300m people. I don't really understand your point.
I vote based on which candidate I like best. So for me, Clinton is more appealing than either 3rd party candidate. I don't weigh in the effect of my vote on the election at large.
Maybe you're too young to remember this, Colton, otherwise I'm not sure why you think I should only vote FOR a candidate and not AGAINST a candidate:
"The Green Party gained widespread public attention during the 2000 presidential election when the ticket composed of Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke won 2.7% of the popular vote. Nader was vilified by some Democrats, who accused him of spoiling the election for Al Gore. Nader's impact on the 2000 election has remained controversial."
Colton is in his forties. I'm sure he remembers that!
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
You can't vote against a candidate. The ballot doesn't work that way. You can only vote in the affirmative.
As far as Nader most people make the mistake of assuming that those people would have shown up to vote for Gore had Nader not run. I doubt that. Nader inspired people to get out and vote for him despite the inevitable loss. You think they would have bothered to go vote for a guy when they picked someone destined to lose over him? They would have abstained like the majority of Americans did. You can't blame Gore losing the election on Nader. You can probably blame it on Jeb and the SCOTUS but not on Nader.