• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
I disagree with my buddy Sean but completely understand his viewpoint: it's rational and the product of lived experiences that I don't share. And while we've disagreed about this a while back, I also respect him enough to accept his choice, and I'm not going to attempt to erase his autonomy and agency by continuing down that path. One, it's dehumanizing. Two, it won't work.

It seems to me that treating him as though he has no moral agency and thus cannot be persuaded to do the right thing is what's really dehumanizing. He's not a child. If you think he is wrong, and you think it carries moral weight, of course you owe it to him to convince him to change.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
Why do non-whites seem to have no problem picking the lesser of "two evils"?

Massive disenfranchisement by way of felony convictions for nonviolent offenses has prevented leftist mobilization in minority groups? That is, our public institutions exist with a goal of criminalizing black, latino, etc. leftists, and that this is obvious from racial dynamics in convictions and sentencing especially relative to drug use?
 

Addie

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,703
DFW
It seems to me that treating him as though he has no moral agency and thus cannot be persuaded to do the right thing is what's really dehumanizing. He's not a child. If you think he is wrong, and you think it carries moral weight, of course you owe it to him to convince him to change.
I think the "my preferred candidate or bust" mindset is wrong, but I also think my time and energy is best spent elsewhere.
 
Dec 12, 2017
4,652
It seems to me that treating him as though he has no moral agency and thus cannot be persuaded to do the right thing is what's really dehumanizing. He's not a child. If you think he is wrong, and you think it carries moral weight, of course you owe it to him to convince him to change.
Right, so if he's called out as a non-ally, so be it. He doesn't need to be treated with kiddie gloves.
 
Dec 12, 2017
4,652
Massive disenfranchisement by way of felony convictions for nonviolent offenses has prevented leftist mobilization in minority groups? That is, our public institutions exist with a goal of criminalizing black, latino, etc. leftists, and that this is obvious from racial dynamics in convictions and sentencing especially relative to drug use?
Lol, you can't be serious. After fighting against the Dixiecrats for years dying for our right for representation, you think that's why we fall in line???

It has nothing to do with years of voter suppression, systemic oppression due to racism?? And the fact that one side does everything in their power to maintain it?? Are you really that out of touch???

This is what many black people (not just old ones, check the polls) hear when Bernie supporters like you speak for us.
 
Last edited:

NoName999

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,906
Also, it's okay to get mad at excelsiorlef but getting mad at Sean is somehow too much?

Way to be consistent, guys? Also way to only be mad at the woman. That's not an underlining issue on this forum or anything.

Massive disenfranchisement by way of felony convictions for nonviolent offenses has prevented leftist mobilization in minority groups? That is, our public institutions exist with a goal of criminalizing black, latino, etc. leftists, and that this is obvious from racial dynamics in convictions and sentencing especially relative to drug use?

Or you know....

The lesser evil person won't kill us.

Sometimes, it's the simple answer.
 

Deleted member 7373

Guest
If people are that afraid of "Bernie or Bust" then doesn't that mean you should be pushing for Bernie Sanders for nominee? If a group has this much supposed power then doesn't he effectively become the only real option? Instead of spending energy convincing people to vote for a bad nominee in the general you should be pushing Bernie 110% right now.
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Massive disenfranchisement by way of felony convictions for nonviolent offenses has prevented leftist mobilization in minority groups? That is, our public institutions exist with a goal of criminalizing black, latino, etc. leftists, and that this is obvious from racial dynamics in convictions and sentencing especially relative to drug use?

Wait, sorry. You're saying the reason black voters consistently vote pragmatically is that there are no black radicals?
 

xxracerxx

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
31,222
If people are that afraid of "Bernie or Bust" then doesn't that mean you should be pushing for Bernie Sanders for nominee? If a group has this much supposed power then doesn't he effectively become the only real option? Instead of spending energy convincing people to vote for a bad nominee in the general you should be pushing Bernie 110% right now.
It's not just about Sanders though.
 

PoppaBK

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,165
You're right next time i'll hold their hand and tell them I totally understand that their conscience doesn;'t allow them to take the only action that can prevent Trump from further eroding women's rights.
-pissed that people can't muster the ability to get out and vote against Trump
-can't muster the ability to hide that anger even if it will likely turn off people from voting against trump
 

Blue Skies

Banned
Mar 27, 2019
9,224
How do you know this? Because people aren't taking to the streets armed for revolution?

What do you need to see ppl do here that will make you change your assumption?

As Mewshuji already pointed out, straight white men—and straight white women—voted overwhelmingly in key states for Trump.

If you're a minority, what can you do when you're outnumbered?
I make sure my voice is heard and I vote

no reason to ever not vote

presidential elections aren't the only ones. There's city elections and state elections, and those are won by slim margins often
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Not at all. I'm saying most of the black radicals had their rights stripped away from them by force! We don't have this discussion about them because they already can't vote

But you said mobilization. Mobilization doesn't require enfranchisement -- they can convince people to withhold their votes. Why don't they?
 
OP
OP
excelsiorlef

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,326
-pissed that people can't muster the ability to get out and vote against Trump
-can't muster the ability to hide that anger even if it will likely turn off people from voting against trump

Wow you're right if they don't vote against white supremacy it's my fault because I was angry.
 

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815
If people are that afraid of "Bernie or Bust" then doesn't that mean you should be pushing for Bernie Sanders for nominee? If a group has this much supposed power then doesn't he effectively become the only real option? Instead of spending energy convincing people to vote for a bad nominee in the general you should be pushing Bernie 110% right now.
Wait what?

Is the argument... "hey kowtow to people who are stomping their feet?" Because that seems like a pretty bizarre strategy.
 

Stinkles

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,459
If people are that afraid of "Bernie or Bust" then doesn't that mean you should be pushing for Bernie Sanders for nominee? If a group has this much supposed power then doesn't he effectively become the only real option? Instead of spending energy convincing people to vote for a bad nominee in the general you should be pushing Bernie 110% right now.

Nobody is pushing anyone to pick a bad nominee in the general. Sensible people are accurately pointing out that if your preferred nominee loses the nomination to pick whoever wins. That person may be your least or most favorite nominee. That doesn't mean they're bad. It means they're a vastly better choice than the utterly destructive alternatives which are an insane person with a fascistic party looking to secure power and stay out of jail at any cost, or not voting as a form of protest which will mathematically favor the insane racist and Manchurian proxy of the fascist dictators he seeks to emulate.

Bernie is currently not favored to win, neither are Klob, Warren, Pete etc. Asking their voters the same question is just as reasonable and inherent in the thread title - and good luck finding a real Biden enthusiast on this site but Bernie is not the only candidate this request applies to.
 

Redeye97

Banned
Apr 25, 2019
462
Imagine that T-Rex chase scene from Jurassic Park where instead of trying to get away as fast they could, they sat there and bickered about who got to drive as the T-Rex got closer.
 
Dec 12, 2017
4,652
Nobody is pushing anyone to pick a bad nominee in the general. Sensible people are accurately pointing out that if your preferred nominee loses the nomination to pick whoever wins. That person may be your least or most favorite nominee. That doesn't mean they're bad. It means they're a vastly better choice than the utterly destructive alternatives which are an insane person with a fascistic party looking to secure power and stay out of jail at any cost, or not voting as a form of protest which will mathematically favor the insane racist and Manchurian proxy of the fascist dictators he seeks to emulate.

Bernie is currently not favored to win, neither are Klob, Warren, Pete etc. Asking their voters the same question is just as reasonable and inherent in the thread title - and good luck finding a real Biden enthusiast on this site but Bernie is not the only candidate this request applies to.
If you check the latest polls the only supporters who would abstain from voting in the GE are Yang's and Sanders'. That unbelievable to me.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,500
I'd still like this point to be addressed by someone. I feel like it's being entirely ignored.

End of the day it's the responsibility of the party to invigorate voters and make them want to support you. Looking at non voters with extreme contempt just absolves political parties of their one fucking purpose, garnering support to enact their dogma. I say this as someone who gets pissed at non voters bitching about policy.

If Biden became the candidate, why is he absolved of a responsibility to invigorate voters? To turn heads of people that don't trust him? Why isn't any responsibility being sent to him to actually be a fucking leader?
 

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Wait what?

Is the argument... "hey kowtow to people who are stomping their feet?" Because that seems like a pretty bizarre strategy.

I have seen multiple leftists attempt to deploy this argument on the board recently and they have mostly fallen over themselves due to not understanding the initial conditions necessary for it to work, so I'll spell it out correctly in the hopes that it will help them in the future.

IF you believe that there are a large contingent of voters who will only vote for a particular Democratic nominee (larger, specifically, than the equivalent contingent for any other nominee),
AND you believe that it is important to win as many voters as you can in order to win the general election,
THEN you should support that nominee in the primary in order to maximize your chances of winning the general.

One way to fill in the blanks here is:

IF there are a lot of moderate centrist Democrats who will only vote for Biden because the other candidates are too far to the left,
AND you want to win,
THEN you have to vote for Biden.

When you put it this way it's called "electability," and this is a very common use of the argument. Especially in 2016!

But you can also fill it in another way:

IF there are a whole lot of Bernie or Bust voters, way more than moderates or Tulsi or Toodlers or whatever,
AND beating Trump is a moral necessity,
THEN obviously you have to vote for Bernie in the primary.

You can call this "blackmail" or "entryism" or whatever you want but it's the same exact argument. So the question is whether you really believe that there are that many Bernie or Busters and whether we need them to win.

If you check the latest polls the only supporters who would abstain from boring are Yang's and Sanders'. That unbelievable to me.

Personally, I don't think those polls are reliable at all. People's self-reported willingness to vote for another candidate, in the middle of a contested primary, before the convention, campaigning, endorsements, and all that stuff, is in my view a basically valueless piece of data.

If people are still saying they won't vote after the convention, you should be worried. Of course, it will also be too late by then.
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,981
Pretty much. You would think climate change would be enough of a factor, but the cult of Bernie has taken over and it's Bernie or bust.

Then they become oblivious to why Bernie gets killed in the black vote.
Even worse is the poorly veiled racism telling people that they're voting against their own interests or uninformed if they don't support a certain candidate. I've heard this shit repeatedly every time I've indicated I prefer Warren for the nomination from Sanders supporters.

Eventually taking minorities, and our votes, for granted is going to come home for roost for white progressives and moderates who erase our voices and downplay our concerns yet still put some of the blame on us for white people and their apathetic and privileged voting habits. Fucking imagine if they had bothered showing up for Obama in 2010 and 2014.
 

BADMAN

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,887
Is it? It feels a little bit bonkers to me to argue what boils down to "well one wing of voters is irrationally holding the rest of the country hostage so give in to their demands or Trump wins."
It's not so different from the Democratic strategy of appealing to moderates. If you're going to have a better chance at winning by going with the candidate that's going to get the most votes in the General then you should probably nominate that candidate. It's actually better this way since we don't have to worry about electing a moderate who may push a republican-lite/neoliberal agenda while in office.
 
Dec 12, 2017
4,652
I'd still like this point to be addressed by someone. I feel like it's being entirely ignored.



If Biden became the candidate, why is he absolved of a responsibility to invigorate voters? To turn heads of people that don't trust him? Why isn't any responsibility being sent to him to actually be a fucking leader?
Because the difference between Biden and Trump is that

My brother can't get fired because he's gay
That any woman has the right to chooss
That local districts aren't drawn, and voter laws aren't written to disenfranchise black voters
So we can actually do something about climate change
Kids will no longer be locked on cages seperated from their family.

This is why, according to the poll, 90% of Biden and Warren supporters will unconditionally support the Democratic nominee.
 

Deleted member 41502

User requested account closure
Banned
Mar 28, 2018
1,177
If people are that afraid of "Bernie or Bust" then doesn't that mean you should be pushing for Bernie Sanders for nominee? If a group has this much supposed power then doesn't he effectively become the only real option? Instead of spending energy convincing people to vote for a bad nominee in the general you should be pushing Bernie 110% right now.
People aren't afraid of Bernie or Bust. They're afraid of any small group throwing things because Electoral College.

Like, there are a shitload of small (and large) groups that all have to be "invigorated" about a candidate. Finding one who all of them like is basically impossible.
 

NoName999

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,906
I'd still like this point to be addressed by someone. I feel like it's being entirely ignored.



If Biden became the candidate, why is he absolved of a responsibility to invigorate voters? To turn heads of people that don't trust him? Why isn't any responsibility being sent to him to actually be a fucking leader?

He's not going to be absolved.

But at some point, people need to take responsibility for their inactions if they don't support him, or whoever the Dem nominee is. If three years of Trump wasn't a wake up call then you're either rich, bigoted, or just beyond stupid.
 

Deleted member 11822

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,644

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815
It's not so different from the Democratic strategy of appealing to moderates. If you're going to have a better chance at winning by going with the candidate that's going to get the most votes in the General then you should probably nominate that candidate. It's actually better this way since we don't have to worry about electing a moderate who may push a republican-lite/neoliberal agenda while in office.
So let me make sure I'm following. By this argument, if Biden looks more electable then you should probably nominate him?
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,500
Because the difference between Biden and Trump is that

My brother can't get fired because he's gay
That any woman has the right to chooss
That local districts aren't drawn, and voter laws aren't written to disenfranchise black voters
So we can actually do something about climate change
Kids will no longer be locked on cages seperated from their family.

This is why, according to the poll, 90% of Biden and Warren supporters will unconditionally support the Democratic nominee.

This isn't an answer to the question I asked.

The question was why are people absolving the democratic candidate of their responsibility to actually invigorate and make people want to vote for them? This question has nothing to do with Trump.
 

Gotdatmoney

Member
Oct 28, 2017
14,500
No one is doing that, I mean Biden is leading the polls no??

Sure people are. When you freak the fuck out about people who wont vote for one of the democratic candidates based on some policy you are doing that. I haven't seen any of those people actually challenge the candidate themselves to get better. It's just been a bunch of "your letting Trump win then asshole" variations.

He's not going to be absolved.

But at some point, people need to take responsibility for their inactions if they don't support him, or whoever the Dem nominee is. If three years of Trump wasn't a wake up call then you're either rich, bigoted, or just beyond stupid.

What responsibilty do they have to actually take in practice though? Half your country doesnt vote in general elections, not going to the polls is factually as common as going to them. That's why I'm baffled why people freak out towards your average citizen but the actual parties themselves seemingly slip through responsibility for sucking at mobilizing voters which is one of their primary objectives.

____________

I've already given my stance on the topic but this whole vitrol towards none voters just seems like energy focused at the wrong party (pun intended)
 

BADMAN

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,887
So let me make sure I'm following. By this argument, if Biden looks more electable then you should probably nominate him?
Right. That's up to you to decide though. From my perspective, Biden is coasting in this primary on the democrats that trust him to make things normal again. If he gets to the General, the lack of enthusiasm and history of being a trash politician isn't going to gain him any more ground. He'd also be losing a chunk of the "Bernie or Bust" voter block. Combine that with his borderline senility and built in GOP smear narratives and you got a candidate that has a low ceiling for voter growth. He'd be relying on Trump hatred as opposed to being able to excite voters.

Bernie has his own problems to deal with, but his potential to grow his voter base is far better than Biden and likely there won't be as many people *not* voting for him within the Democratic party. It helps too that he's largely seen as an outsider to the party who's promising to change the Democratic platform. That draws in voters who are disillusioned with the party. He also has real enthusiasm behind him which makes a big difference for undecided voters who "vote with their gut".

He may end up losing some moderate voters, but I imagine a lot of them will vote Bernie anyway since Trump is such a destructive piece of shit. That's my opinion anyway.
 

rjinaz

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
28,410
Phoenix
Just reading through the thread, my take away from those that won't vote for Biden is that they feel their own rights are being taken away somehow by others telling them how they should vote.

Now think about this. In a thread where the topic is literally about women's rights being stripped away. Just yesterday we had a thread where Trump's goals for his next term is to strip away "entitlements" like medicaid, social security, and medicare.

But, for some, if they have even a perception that some aspect of their own rights are being violated, that's all it takes for them. If somebody on the internet tells them they need to vote for Biden, it's just too much man. They won't even sacrifice their own perception of their own rights even if it means other's rights will actually be stripped away.

"It sucks for those people but, don't tell me how to vote".

Yes I'm sure if they don't vote and Trump wins they will rationalize it that Democrats should have chosen a better candidate and people's lives being destroyed had nothing to do with their own persecution complex on the internet.

Bottom line is, Trump is a danger to millions of Americans. It sucks for you if you feel like you have to vote for Biden even though you don't want to. It sucks even more for the millions of people that are actually having their rights taken away after Trump wins. Doesn't it? Imagine being a Black Woman voter. Yet, in the end, they'll do what those offended in this thread won't do. It's almost as if they have skin in the game.
 

Brinbe

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
58,367
Terana
Regardless of who the nominee is, everyone needs to bust their ass to ensure this fucker is voted out.

That's the priority and then work at cajoling Biden to the left. But come on. Not voting is not the way to go here. It's like not tipping workers to send some message. You're just hurting the ppl you purportedly support.
 

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815
Right. That's up to you to decide though. From my perspective, Biden is coasting in this primary on the democrats that trust him to make things normal again. If he gets to the General, the lack of enthusiasm and history of being a trash politician isn't going to gain him any more ground. He'd also be losing a chunk of the "Bernie or Bust" voter block. Combine that with his borderline senility and built in GOP smear narratives and you got a candidate that has a low ceiling for voter growth. He'd be relying on Trump hatred as opposed to being able to excite voters.

Bernie has his own problems to deal with, but his potential to grow his voter base is far better than Biden and likely there won't be as many people *not* voting for him within the Democratic party. It helps too that he's largely seen as an outsider to the party who's promising to change the Democratic platform. That draws in voters who are disillusioned with the party. He also has real enthusiasm behind him which makes a big difference for undecided voters who "vote with their gut".

He may end up losing some moderate voters, but I imagine a lot of them will vote Bernie anyway since Trump is such a destructive piece of shit. That's my opinion anyway.
I'm definitely not a fan of Biden and I worry about his many flaws in a general but overall I was responding to the notion you put forth that we should nominate the "most electable" candidate. If polling were to bear out that Biden was the most electable would that make you want to support him? Again, I'm just trying to follow the logic here all the way through.
 

NoName999

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,906
What responsibilty do they have to actually take in practice though? Half your country doesnt vote in general elections, not going to the polls is factually as common as going to them. That's why I'm baffled why people freak the our towards your average citizen vut the actual parties themselves seemingly slip through responsibility for sucking at mobilizing voters which is one of their primart objectives.

You can lead a horse water.

This isn't complicated. Both parties spend plenty of time hyping their guy and downplay the other guy. The American Presidential election lasts for 18 months.

Even during downtime, several of them are still in the public eye.

They can only do so much and it's not like they can meet with every single American to listen about whatever their problem is.

If a voter still won't vote despite all of this, it's still their fault.

And the reason people are mad now is because Trump is destroying the country. Possibly beyond recovery.
 

thesoapster

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,909
MD, USA
I don't currently have the time to read this entire thread. However, insurance can't cross state lines right now. So obviously it's not the federal government's fucking business. But Trump would pick a stupid fight like this (of course).
 
Dec 12, 2017
4,652
Sure people are. When you freak the fuck out about people who wont vote for one of the democratic candidates based on some policy you are doing that. I haven't seen any of those people actually challenge the candidate themselves to get better. It's just been a bunch of "your letting Trump win then asshole" variations.



What responsibilty do they have to actually take in practice though? Half your country doesnt vote in general elections, not going to the polls is factually as common as going to them. That's why I'm baffled why people freak out towards your average citizen but the actual parties themselves seemingly slip through responsibility for sucking at mobilizing voters which is one of their primary objectives.

____________

I've already given my stance on the topic but this whole vitrol towards none voters just seems like energy focused at the wrong party (pun intended)
This is the epitome of what I'm trying to say. My point is that (speaking for myself) black people don't have the luxury of this choice at the expense of many rights due to SC and Federal court appointees.

The fact that it takes so much to mobilize some of the Sanders electorate is telling, no?

The fact that Trump is eliminating the rights of minorities, is completely ignoring climate change, and is corrupt as fuck isn't enough to fall in line? Fuck that.

Abrams lost. Gillum lost. Booker lost.
And guess what, we're still falling in line. Why do you think that is??
 
Last edited:

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
I'd still like this point to be addressed by someone. I feel like it's being entirely ignored.



If Biden became the candidate, why is he absolved of a responsibility to invigorate voters? To turn heads of people that don't trust him? Why isn't any responsibility being sent to him to actually be a fucking leader?

If Joe Biden posted on ERA I would absolutely light him up don't worry
 

BADMAN

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,887
I'm definitely not a fan of Biden and I worry about his many flaws in a general but overall I was responding to the notion you put forth that we should nominate the "most electable" candidate. If polling were to bear out that Biden was the most electable would that make you want to support him? Again, I'm just trying to follow the logic here all the way through.
I don't take polling as the most important metric here. It shows a snapshot of what people are thinking right now. I prefer to think more in the abstract of what the General will actually look like. For that, you have to look at a candidate's history, policy, personality, enthusiasm, and overall message. A mix of objective and subjective.

The argument of "vote Bernie because he has the most voters who won't vote for anyone else" is both misleading and true. As is "Vote Biden or the moderates are going to show for Bernie". We can't know exactly how many people are not going to show up for either candidate. Your best option there is to gauge things using the variety of metrics at your disposal. The one's I've previously listed. And apply those to where the country is right now as a whole. This is less of a certain science and more of a weather forecast.

I think the full extent of the argument is mostly a reaction to the arguments that the left has heard in the past, that we can't have what we want because "moderates", and we're turning it back on you. It's not untrue though. And if you look at general polling, Bernie's doing second best in those kinda iffy metrics. It shows at the very least that being a "self proclaimed socialist" isn't a deal breaker.
 

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815
I don't take polling as the most important metric here. It shows a snapshot of what people are thinking right now. I prefer to think more in the abstract of what the General will actually look like. For that, you have to look at a candidate's history, policy, personality, enthusiasm, and overall message. A mix of objective and subjective.

The argument of "vote Bernie because he has the most voters who won't vote for anyone else" is both misleading and true. As is "Vote Biden or the moderates are going to show for Bernie". We can't know exactly how many people are not going to show up for either candidate. Your best option there is to gauge things using the variety of metrics at your disposal. The one's I've previously listed. And apply those to where the country is right now as a whole. This is less of a certain science and more of a weather forecast.

I think the full extent of the argument is mostly a reaction to the arguments that the left has heard in the past, that we can't have what we want because "moderates", and we're turning it back on you. It's not untrue though. And if you look at general polling, Bernie's doing second best in those kinda iffy metrics. It shows at the very least that being a "self proclaimed socialist" isn't a deal breaker.
OK maybe I misunderstood your original post then. It seemed to set up an if/ then scenario about who is the most electable (something that I think is pretty difficult to fully grasp) and then nominating that person. So, for instance, if everything broke wonderfully for Biden-- say, he does the right mea culpas, policy ideas that are popular, the right ads, etc-- (and again, I want to stress, Biden is not my pick), would you then say that we should nominate him?
 

Stinkles

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,459
If you check the latest polls the only supporters who would abstain from voting in the GE are Yang's and Sanders'. That unbelievable to me.
Well I can't tell irrational or obstinate people what to do and obviously there's little point arguing with people who are being deliberately disingenuous - but I will repeat this to those (if there are any) real and entrenched folks till November -- if you're a voter who behaves that way then I will appeal to you to reconsider the logic and remind you that not voting in this climate and electoral system favors Donald Trump statistically - and that choice will not only do tremendous and imminent harm to your fellow citizens but is also polar opposite to the policies and positions of both of those candidates. If you intend to abstain from voting if your preferred democratic candidate doesn't win the nomination then you should probably do some serious introspection about what's important to you, how much you care about the security and prosperity of your fellow citizens -- and ultimately why you're supporting your candidate in the first place.

Unless it's Tulsi -- then don't bother, you're already completely transparent and there's nothing to explain. but you should still vote D unless you enjoy poverty and international scorn and isolation and breathing toxic pollutants till the ocean is lapping at your chin.
 

Stinkles

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,459
I've already given my stance on the topic but this whole vitrol towards none voters just seems like energy focused at the wrong party (pun intended)

Because as individuals we can directly appeal to each other much more effectively than we can change a sad two party system - the danger in 2020 is reducing that two party system to a one party illegitimate monolith and empower it to secure that situation for decades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.