General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 38

Hillary isn't even a progressive really. She is just going further to the left to get votes, and then she'll go back to her moderate self. Back in October she said she was moderate and center, and that is who she is, not a "progressive who likes to get things done". She says that her record shows how she is a progressive, but really what I see is a moderate record.

 

Yep. I also don't know why people would think she's a progressive, it's not like Bill ever was. Clearly, Democrat != progressive.

 

American idiot lowkey a classic

 

Lol you are delusional

 

That is such a selfish viewpoint. Its not just about your personal interests, is about the welfare of minorities.

Trump hasn't shown any indication that he would fight for women, LGBT, or other civil rights, and has plans to break apart the families of undocumented immigrants because they are all apparently rapists.

The first past the post system doesn't afford you the luxury of getting to choose to only support someone who caters to your specific interests and beliefs.

 

American Idiot is fantastic

 

Wait, what? The candidates they support look out for those people more than Hillary does... I'm confused by this post

 

American idiot is super great. I also put on my Rock Against Bush cd in my car sometimes. Good stuff.

 

Do you mean Stein in the general? Or Sanders in the primary? Like I said, the first past the post system doesn't afford you the luxury of getting to choose to only support someone who caters to your specific interests and beliefs. Stein isn't winning in the general

 

And (and this isn't directed towards you), some people don't want a heavy progressive like Bernie and see that in Hillary...

 

"No one caters to your strongly held beliefs about protecting the classes of people who are discriminated against, therefore you are selfish for not supporting one of them"

 

Both. I agree it's more responsible to vote Hillary, my point was just that no one's ignoring the welfare of minorities here. In fact, I'd argue that's a large part of the change people are hoping to accomplish by running up support for Sanders or Stein.

 

Both. I agree it's more responsible to vote Hillary, my point was just that no one's ignoring the welfare of minorities here. In fact, I'd argue that's a large part of the change people are hoping to accomplish by running up support for Sanders or Stein.

 

It is more like facing two firing squads. One has handguns and the other has uzis. And someone on the sideline, calling you stupid for opting for the doorway off to the side instead of choosing the weapon by which you want to die.

 

Because then you let the side with the Uzis win.

 

But everyone gets shot anyway. If you are debating the merits of the speed in which people die, you have lost the argument before it even starts.

 

At that point, it doesn't fucking matter because you're dead, along with anyone unlucky enough to look like you. The point is, your analogy is ridiculous. If the system is structured against you, you don't go with it, you break it down.

 

That's not what I'm saying (and I don't know if that was directed towards me, but it's not the most approach selecting a candidate with a "My views or bust" attitude

 

I do not expect an identical candidate with me on every single issue. I do expect that the party that nominally presents itself as "progressive" actually endorse and advance those ideals, starting with the protection of black, trans, and any other minority classes lives at the very *least*.

I don't even fucking like Bernie and I recognize how fucking terrible Clinton will be for those ideals.

 

I think in this metaphor less people get shot one way. Clucky is getting shot either way, would rather prevent women, Muslims, immigrants etc from getting shot

This is a sloppy metaphor that I hope gets dropped soon tho

 

Actually it does because a first past the post system makes individual votes in a single election functionally meaningless as the chances of any one vote having an effect on the election is nil. Which is why the value of any individual vote in this system is purely symbolic. Proportional systems open up the door for strategic voting more as there is a much higher chance your vote could have an effect.

 

I was once tentatively on the side of this argument that regards voting for a third party as selfish abstention. However, clucky's argument for that side has done a good job of persuading me the other way. Just kidding. Kinda.

When Cruz dropped out, so did any chance of me voting for Clinton as a lesser of two evils.

 

Clinton is likely going to try to reach out to republicans now that Trump is the presumptive nominee. They don't think oppression exists. So, then what? Be happy she shifted to the right to position herself as not-Trump? You're basically saying that they don't have to be anti-racist or womanist, or staunchly opposed to transmisogny. Their silence on the issue is enough. Further, you say work on getting progressives in at the local level, omitting that these tactics will be legitimized across the board and, therefore, reinforce right-wing positions for all politicians.

 

And the woman that contributed to a generation of black people being subject to mass incarceration?

 

more like, neither is really shooting at me I get to watch from my position of privilege, but yeah.