Never Trump

[Deleted member 848]

Ugh, Germany is hardly a good example of how a multiparty system is supposed to work. Two biggest parties are in a coalition that is an abomination to man and god, in order to better serve their corporate overlords. What's the point of elections if two parties making up 80% of the parliament will get in bed together? What happened to strong opposition? what's the point of elections then?

Germans really don't know how to do this democracy thing. I don't know why we even let them try again.

Ha on the 2nd pont-- as per the first, it's easy to introduce legislations that can limit the formation of coalitions. While popular in Europe, they're hardly a reality in Canada (I remember there was talk of forming one between the NDP and Liberals a few years ago). Even with the coalition, the regular citizen in Germany is crushing it on almost every socioeconomic index relative to the US (and most other countries). Correct me if I'm mistaken tho. It really, really isn't hard to allow the coexistence of multiple parties & have a well-functioning government in doing so.

 

[colton]

Would you have voted for Cruz? I believe I could probably take Hillary's comment about stay at home moms and raise you with a number of egregious quotes from Cruz or probably also Rubio. On a personality issue, while Hillary may be distasteful, Cruz is an absolutely horrible human being who has no friends and no allies, because he's such a douche bag, and a religious bigot to boot (p.s. I doubt he has a big love of Mormons, and probably routinely says unkind things about them to his associates). In the world of politics with all of the compromised and unpleasant people populating it, here's this guy whom everyone hates. Would that have kept you from voting for him?

I would likely have voted for Cruz. But I voted for Kasich in the primary. I would have thought long and hard about voting for Cruz in the general, though, it wasn't an automatic "yes" for me.

Honestly, that seems like a rather thin thing to hang one's vote on.

I said it started with the stay-at-home mom comment. Since then there have been many other things.

Other than a personal dislike for Hillary, what are her policy positions that you disagree with?

Sorry, not enough time to list things fully. Abortion is one of them. There are many others. Not as many as with Sanders or apparently Gary Johnson.

But note that my dislike for her for non-policy reasons is not just a "personal dislike". It's due to repeated lying, probable corruption, etc.

 

[colton]

that would me MORE self-involved. That doesn't preclude my thoughts that your position is still too self-involved.

I still don't get it. Why is voting for someone that I think is the best candidate even if he/she doesn't have a reasonable shot to win make me self-involved? Please explain again.

 

[candrew]

There's no way Hillary chooses Bernie as VP. And no she's not picking Elizabeth Warren either. My guess is she picks someone slightly below the national radar. No way she is going let herself be upstaged by her #2 man/woman.

As far as the Cruz/Sanders votes up for grabs I see no votes for Hillary in the Cruz camp - they vote for Trump or stay home. I think the wild card in all this is there are SOME Trump votes in the Sanders camp from the hardcore anti-establishment folks. Not sure if enough to swing the election; but once Sanders officially drops out you'll see the poll #'s start to tighten a little bit.

 

[Stoked]

That's not what my post is about at all. I don't know how or where you got that.



But what about this election? You can't possibly argue that two candidates with such vastly differing beliefs or policies are somehow identically bad for the country. That's a cop our or a lie or whatever you want to call it. You're abdicating your responsibility to choose the person who will likely lead your country(and unfortunately, have a great effect on my country and many others) so you can pretend to have a claim to some higher moral ground. It's like Spiderman having to choose between a bus full of kids or his girlfriend and choosing neither because they're both bad choices.

It's not that complicated. Either Hilary or Trump will be the president. Surely, "more of the same" and "roll back the years" can't result in the exact same outcome. Surely one of them is better than the other. And surely, if this is as important an election as everyone seems to think(including yourself), you have some moral obligation to choose.

You said that this is reality and only one of them will win. I agreed.

Here is how I see C and T.

C = I will stab you to death
T = I will shoot you to death

Yes they are different but I still end up hosed.

No, I am voting for who I want to lead the country out of the options I am presented with. You're the only one talking about "moral grounds". I will agree that I have a moral obligation to choose (an area that you brought up) and I have. I do not agree that I have a moral obligation to choose the R or D presented. That's terrible thinking. I have a moral obligation to choose who I think is best.

 

[♪alt13]

I suspect that for many republicans the unwillingness to vote for Hillary, even given that they are repulsed by Trump, owes as much to knee-jerk tribal loyalty than to anything Hillary has done or possibly will do. She's very much an establishment candidate, right of center on some issues, progressive on others, but far from a flaming liberal (as was Obama, although owing to the epidemic of Obama derangement syndrome sweeping the country, many on the right were blinded to this fact). As a progressive myself, I find Hillary too militaristic for my tastes and not nearly progressive enough (her complicity in the smearing of her husband's female accusers, in a very un-feminist way still leaves a bad taste in my mouth)and more of a bandwagon progressive than a committed, principled one.

I see this election as the ultimate test of the power of tribalism relative to one's true devotion to country. Trump is a dumpster fire, and his presidency portents all sorts of very horrible outcomes for this country, while Hillary is a center-right-left depending on issue establishment candidate, who will likely govern as such. Do Republicans vote their tribe, or do they vote their country? It will be very interesting to observe.

cause nationalism is so much better than and at its heart is so very different than tribalism.

Edit:I'm not calling Hilary a nationalist. I just found the statement to be amusing.

 

[NAOS]

I still don't get it. Why is voting for someone that I think is the best candidate even if he/she doesn't have a reasonable shot to win make me self-involved? Please explain again.

Don't act like this discussion is about voting for the best candidate. This thread is about the dread and parsimony of the choices we'll be given on the ballot. You're looking at smaller parties now because of the reality (i.e. false-choice) that Democrats and Republicans have given you. The discussion is about voting in the present context (but it's fitting that your last post retreats to some high-minded spot).

Your hope in the system is still pinned to the authenticity of your (and others) actions vis-a-vis actual choice. That's too much belief in the system, and, given the compromised state of the status quo, too much belief in authentic, within-the-system action. Due to the fact that your own actions are cast in this light, and you feel as if you must feel good and just about your voting actions, I'm calling you too self-involved. It's my opinion that more cynicism would be healthy.

 

[JimLes]

Ha on the 2nd pont-- as per the first, it's easy to introduce legislations that can limit the formation of coalitions. While popular in Europe, they're hardly a reality in Canada (I remember there was talk of forming one between the NDP and Liberals a few years ago). Even with the coalition, the regular citizen in Germany is crushing it on almost every socioeconomic index relative to the US (and most other countries). Correct me if I'm mistaken tho. It really, really isn't hard to allow the coexistence of multiple parties & have a well-functioning government in doing so.

Oh, I have no problem with coalitions, they're a very good thing. I have a problem when the two biggest parties, who allegedly occupy two different ends of the political spectrum, band together. And they have 80% of the seats. What's the point of the election then? Why didn't they just do that ahead of time and save everyone the trouble of voting?

Especially since a reasonable person would assume that SPD, which claim to stand for social democracy(I sh*t on their neo-liberal, capitalist, pretend social democracy, btw), would have a majority if they formed a coalition with the far-left Die Linke and the Greens. You know, the two parties they allegedly occupy the same side of the political spectrum with.

 

[colton]

Don't act like this discussion is about voting for the best candidate. This thread is about the dread and parsimony of the choices we'll be given on the ballot. You're looking at smaller parties now because of the reality (i.e. false-choice) that Democrats and Republicans have given you. The discussion is about voting in the present context (but it's fitting that your last post retreats to some high-minded spot).

Your hope in the system is still pinned to the authenticity of your (and others) actions vis-a-vis actual choice. That's too much belief in the system, and, given the compromised state of the status quo, too much belief in authentic, within-the-system action. Due to the fact that your own actions are cast in this light, and you feel as if you must feel good and just about your voting actions, I'm calling you too self-involved. It's my opinion that more cynicism would be healthy.

Well, thanks for the explanation. I still think that considering someone who doesn't want to vote for either of the two major parties (for whatever reason) to be self-involved is a pretty bizarre view.

 

[NAOS]

Well, thanks for the explanation. I still think that considering someone who doesn't want to vote for either of the two major parties (for whatever reason) to be self-involved is a pretty bizarre view.

you appear to have elite qualities at wriggling out of a discussion. . . . even when there's a written record of what's transpired here.

 

[colton]

you appear to have elite qualities at wriggling out of a discussion. . . . even when there's a written record of what's transpired here.

Not trying to wriggle out of anything. You said that I was being self-involved when I said I would vote for who I thought was the best candidate rather than voting for someone I dislike in order to prevent someone I dislike more from winning. That seems very odd to me. End of story.

The written record:

Voting for anyone but Trump will be the same as voting for Hillary, though.

I disagree with this assessment. In the grand scheme of things, a single vote is NEVER going to make the different in a presidential election. It's statistically impossible. So for me, on an individual basis, it's far more important to vote for someone in good conscience (so that I can live with myself) than to take the view that I need to vote for someone I really dislike in order to prevent someone I dislike more from winning.

that sounds a bit too self-involved for my tastes. Also, it doesn't alter Cappy's point one bit.

Self-involved would be thinking that my vote would actually be the deciding factor, no?

that would me MORE self-involved. That doesn't preclude my thoughts that your position is still too self-involved.

I still don't get it. Why is voting for someone that I think is the best candidate even if he/she doesn't have a reasonable shot to win make me self-involved? Please explain again.

Don't act like this discussion is about voting for the best candidate. This thread is about the dread and parsimony of the choices we'll be given on the ballot. You're looking at smaller parties now because of the reality (i.e. false-choice) that Democrats and Republicans have given you. The discussion is about voting in the present context (but it's fitting that your last post retreats to some high-minded spot).

Your hope in the system is still pinned to the authenticity of your (and others) actions vis-a-vis actual choice. That's too much belief in the system, and, given the compromised state of the status quo, too much belief in authentic, within-the-system action. Due to the fact that your own actions are cast in this light, and you feel as if you must feel good and just about your voting actions, I'm calling you too self-involved. It's my opinion that more cynicism would be healthy.

Well, thanks for the explanation. I still think that considering someone who doesn't want to vote for either of the two major parties (for whatever reason) to be self-involved is a pretty bizarre view.

 

[NAOS]

the record extends well beyond this thread. But, whatevs.