Jump to content

U.S. Elections: Apocalypse upon the horizon


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

I was not expecting this kind of response. People have attempted to shame or bully me into voting and I'm shocked I didn't get it here. I'm cynical by nature but I still might go to the polls. I'm more likely to write in Reverend Al Bundy or Obadiah Snooks.  

Not trying to shame or bully you.  Just was recently at the Lorton Workhouse Museum.  We take our right to vote for granted in so many ways.  And look, the system is stacked towards "it doesn't matter" what with the electoral college and all.  I get all that (and I live in New York, and am not a natural Democrat, so I really get it).  Have come around to its actually more subversive to vote in whatever way I feel comfortable, no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

I was not expecting this kind of response. People have attempted to shame or bully me into voting and I'm shocked I didn't get it here. I'm cynical by nature but I still might go to the polls. I'm more likely to write in Reverend Al Bundy or Obadiah Snooks.  

That would be better than not voting at all. I stayed home in 2000 because I couldn't stomach either Gore or Bush but wasn't willing to waste my vote on Ralph Nader, either.

I'll never make that mistake again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Saying "the rest of the world will laugh at us" will never be an effective strategy. I mean unless you want people to circle the wagons and go against you out of spite.

It's not just a US thing. You think the Leave voters cared what the rest of the EU or President Obama thought?

That argument probably worked slightly against the Remain campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

AMP,

Choosing not to vote because you don't like any of the candidates offered or because you believe the system is fundamentally broken or flawed is a perfectly reasonable political position to hold.

The act of voting implies you support this system, in my opinion.

Scot - you are on lengthy record regarding your disagreement with our current electoral system.  Are you voting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

That would be better than not voting at all. I stayed home in 2000 because I couldn't stomach either Gore or Bush but wasn't willing to waste my vote on Ralph Nader, either.

I'll never make that mistake again. 

Yeah, turns out choosing the lesser evil is actually the most important kind of choice you can make. Once learned, never forgotten. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Yeah, turns out choosing the lesser evil is actually the most important kind of choice you can make. Once learned, never forgotten. 

Life is full of choices between the lesser of two evils. That's just reality. 

No country will ever have a "perfect" politician or candidate. Again, reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

I was not expecting this kind of response. People have attempted to shame or bully me into voting and I'm shocked I didn't get it here. I'm cynical by nature but I still might go to the polls. I'm more likely to write in Reverend Al Bundy or Obadiah Snooks.  

Voting for Clinton helps create a landslide that helps overwhelm any concept of their being any doubt as to her legitimacy as president, something that I am actually worried will be in effect.  She needs to utterly overwhelm Trump in part to send a message that that kind of fucking idiocy isn't welcome here, otherwise the next candidate will be someone who is just as loathsome policy-wise but is slightly better at hiding it.  

I mean, it probably still will be, but what can you do?

 

e:  Scot, voting doesn't imply endorsement of the system any more than my paying taxes implies endorsement of the actions of the government.  Engaging with a system you don't personally have the power to change isn't endorsement, its attempting to bring the system closer in line with your values.  Its accepting what you can't alter, changing what you can, and ideally knowing the difference.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Not trying to shame or bully you.  Just was recently at the Lorton Workhouse Museum.  We take our right to vote for granted in so many ways.  And look, the system is stacked towards "it doesn't matter" what with the electoral college and all.  I get all that (and I live in New York, and am not a natural Democrat, so I really get it).  Have come around to its actually more subversive to vote in whatever way I feel comfortable, no matter what.

I didn't think so at all, I appreciate your response. I'm probably going to reach that point, I just don't know when. 

42 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

That would be better than not voting at all. I stayed home in 2000 because I couldn't stomach either Gore or Bush but wasn't willing to waste my vote on Ralph Nader, either.

I'll never make that mistake again. 

I would have that concern if I lived in an Ohio or a Florida. I'd probably just hols my nose and vore for Hillary Clinton. 

32 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

AMP,

Choosing not to vote because you don't like any of the candidates offered or because you believe the system is fundamentally broken or flawed is a perfectly reasonable political position to hold.

The act of voting implies you support this system, in my opinion.

Yes! That is exactly what I'm trying to explain to my father and my friends. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

AMP,

Choosing not to vote because you don't like any of the candidates offered or because you believe the system is fundamentally broken or flawed is a perfectly reasonable political position to hold.

The act of voting implies you support this system, in my opinion.

I gotta disagree with that last line. Maybe an imperfect analogy, but I feel that is like saying "I don't support this whole 'tax' scheme, so I'm going to forfeit my tax return"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rhllor's void lobster said:

I gotta disagree with that last line. Maybe an imperfect analogy, but I feel that is like saying "I don't support this whole 'tax' scheme, so I'm going to forfeit my tax return"

I agree. Voting is one way to make change, and if you don't vote I question just how serious you are about change. 

Also, I really do believe that it is every American's duty to ensure that a hateful, bullying white nationalist with no regard for the truth never gets to the Oval Office. Staying home is saying that you are OK with a hateful, bullying white nationalist with no regard for the truth getting to the Oval Office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Also, I really do believe that it is every American's duty to ensure that a hateful, bullying white nationalist with no regard for the truth never gets to the Oval Office. Staying home is saying that you are OK with a hateful, bullying white nationalist with no regard for the truth getting to the Oval Office.

 Yeah, despite being lukewarm on Hillary, I'm as motivated to vote in this election as I ever have been. If for no other reason than to cancel out a Trump vote. I'm cool with that given the circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have much of a horse in the race and I wouldn't try to persuade anyone to vote, if it's in a safe state where it makes no real difference to outcome, but my sense is that the discourse post-election is swayed by the margin of victory, which those safe state votes do count towards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Relic said:

I have to ask. Is there anyone here who was not decided who they will vote for?

sure.  louisiana's ballot currently includes, inter alia:

Quote

 

Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka (Green) 

Gloria Estela La Riva/Eugene Puryear (Socialism and Liberation - listed as Other)

Jerry White/Niles Niemuth (Socialism, Equality, Anti-War - listed as Other)

Alyson Kennedy/Osborne Hart (Socialist Workers - listed as Other)

 

i'm registered green, but they're too rightwing supergross for me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, it made me more comfortable with the idea of voting for Hillary rather than third party.

I disagreed with a lot of what she said.  E.g., she went off, relatively incoherently (but in contrast it was like a m-fing clinic of clarity) on profit sharing.  The plan on her website is equally incoherent.  It is unclear whether this would be something required or something voluntary, and if voluntary why it would be entered into or sustainable.  Mexico has a required profit sharing regime (the PTU - 10% of profits to employees) - it never struck me as particularly efficient.  That is, it is simply a tax that privately inures to employee citizens (true that the Mexican government can then tax the employee, but why that is more efficient than simply setting the corporate tax rate correctly in the first place baffles me).  I believe Clinton's plan is a plan that has a 2 year credit of 15% of profits, limited to 10% of the employees' incomes (e.g., a worker who makes $50K could receive an additional $5K of comp, and the employer a $750 credit for two years).  Why this would become self-sustaining if voluntary smacks of magical thinking.  Temporary credits are just that, temporary, and do not change behavior (that, and everyone knows how I feel about using the tax code to change behavior).  I also didn't love the way she framed the "equal pay" discussion.  While I'm a huge advocate for equal pay, there was a smack to her comments that suggested that ability shouldn't be a differentiating factor in pay.  Now, look, this is problematic because of implicit bias (and this is something I personally struggle against), but framing the solution IMO has to be done carefully.  

ALL that said, she was (1) presidential, (2) good on foreign policy - seemed really sound and strong in her presentation, and (3) you know, she has a plan, which I don't have to agree with 100%.  So, anyhow, I walked away comforted that, while I don't agree with her 100%, she won't run the country into a nuclear winter, and better than that, might actually be able to work with the muppets that are in Congress to get something done.  That would be change I could believe in (to steal a catchphrase).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So I'm curious.  Why does Donald seem to believe that bringing up Bill Clinton's 1990s era sexual peccadilloes have anything to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness to become President?  Particularly when his own record in that particular arena is .... less than pristine?  I can think of the following reasons, all of them relatively, oh heck, I'll just say it, sexist:

1.  She stayed married to a person who cheated on her, therefore she must be weak.

2.  She is tainted by association - that is, the sins of the husband are visited upon the wife.  Basically summoning up all the residual and lingering anti-Clinton sentiment in general against her

3.  Basically, who Hillary is isn't that important because, well, she has a husband, and so one must look at his record.

Does it work?  Does he get a free pass on all of his scandals?  I just don't really get the gambit, but I'm not the target audience for the attack.  

The issue isn't just 'sexual peccadilloes' it's also accusations of rape by multiple credible victims. Hillary is accused of being involved by defaming, bullying and harassing the rape victims and the women Bill had affairs with. Now I know Trump has his rape accuser as well but there are as of yet no multiple accusations from credible victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...