StrangeSox

If my main issue is doing something ASAP about AGW, why should I vote Democrat? They showed me that they were incapable of or unwilling to enact legislation to significantly address the issue.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 05:04 PM) And thank you for illustrating my point...no matter how unhappy you were with the candidates in the 2000 election, you can't bring yourself to say that Al Gore would have been just as bad as W. That's funny, that's not my argument and never has been. Why do the Democrats deserve my support, Balta? Is it simply because they're less bad than the Republicans?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:59 PM) So, you're protesting against Al Gore. (And anyway...if you're going to use that as an argument, seriously, I've already won. You want to tell me how Al Gore would have been no better than W? Really? That makes my point entirely.) Thank you, you've illustrated my point: by that definition, that any vote not for a candidate is a protest against that candidate, all votes are protest votes and thus the term becomes meaningless.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:57 PM) And the people who benefit most from failing to vote for the Democrat are the oil companies, coal industry, and chamber of commerce. Yeah, they really took it on the chin with that carbon tax....er, wait, OBama was playing lovey-dovey with the CoC and letting them frame the issue. Again. You're right, the Democrats deserve my vote simply because they're a little less terrible than the Republicans. My mistake! You know what benefits people who oppose progressive policies? When both parties nominate people who oppose progressive policies (or lack any ability to get them enacted even with large majorities) and convince enough progressives that they still are entitled to their votes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:55 PM) Balta's storytime. You're talking to a person who cast a protest vote in the 2004 Democratic primaries, because I wasn't voting for anyone who voted in favor of Bush's stupid war. In the fall, you're damn right I came home and voted for Kerry, like him or not, because I was just as motivated to vote against W's war then as I was in the spring. I voted for the candidate I preferred, even though he'd already dropped out of the race. It was a vote for a candidate with no shot at winning, but it was still the right vote for me. It was a protest vote. "I don't like the connotation I believe that word has!" is not an argument here. "I reject the idea that any vote not for (D) or ® is somehow a less legitimate vote" is an argument. Protest voting does exist. Voting Mickie Mouse, voting for Kerry simply as a protest against Bush. Voting Nader because I'd rather have him as President than Gore? That's not a protest vote, that's democracy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:45 PM) Wait wait wait. You do realize that: 1. The Congress passed legislation in a budget that forbade the President from spending funds on closing Gitmo or on trying the people in the U.S. legal system, and that's the only reason why Holder has gone back to the military commissions? How do you blame the President for an act of Congress? Wait wait wait, what happened between 2009 and 2011? When the dems had supermajorities? Why is Obama continuing to be just as bad as Bush with all of this detainees bulls***? I'm not solely blaming Obama here, that's pretty clear. The people who benefit from my votes is the person I voted for. If the Democrats want my vote, they need to nominate someone who deserves it. I am not a de facto Democrat vote just because they're not quite as bad as the Republicans. Why did the Democrats fail to enact substantial climate change initiatives in 2009-2011? Why should I vote for them again, so that they can do nothing again? The people who benefit from your Democrat votes are bought-and-paid-for Democrats and the corporations who own them. People who are opposed to any real progressive policies benefit. Center-right Democrats benefit. People who won't really do anything about climate change benefit because there's zero pressure to actually take some political risk because they've got enough hand-wringing *better support the Dems, lest the Republicans get in and enact more or less the same policies!* liberals buying into the idea that they deserve the liberal vote simply because they're a little left of the Republicans on the whole. If we keep voting for Democrats and HOPE that they'll CHANGE from being a centrist-at-best corporate party with no desire to enact progressive policies, we'll never get progressive policies.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:37 PM) You're perfectly free to believe that, but it's still a textbook definition of a protest vote. You just don't like the way you interpret the context. Voting for a candidate with no shot at winning because you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates is a protest vote. Regardless of how you justify it. It's a textbook definition and it requires buying into the "Democrats and Republicans deserve all of the votes" narrative, which I reject. I do not have to justify voting for the candidate who most closely matches my politics. My vote is no more of a "protest" than you voting for a Democrat is a "protest" against all other candidates.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) And apparently you are, in fact, loose on your principles as you are unwilling to cast a vote to stop the election of a person who believes that the solution to our energy problems is to have our army take over a couple of Iraqi oil fields as payment for services rendered over the past decade. Spins both ways, sir. Not really, since Obama and the supermajority dems neglected to do a single god-damned meaningful thing about the problem. A vote for Obama was no different for a vote for McCain if you wanted strong climate change initiatives, or closing down Gitmo/ending a decade of civil and human rights abuses, meaningful financial reform, etc. The party you keep supporting doesn't have any different of a solution to our energy problems than the party you hate.

I reject the framing of voting for a candidate you prefer as wasteful, meaningless, petulant, etc. I reject having the discussion on the grounds that the two major parties are entitled to all votes and anything other than a vote for them is done in protest and not simply voting for your preferred candidate and policies.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 04:20 PM) You didn't answer the question. If Trump has an "R" after his name, he's almost guaranteed 40% in a general presidential election as long as he doesn't murder someone. That's how the system works. I'm testing how stringent you are on your principle here. I want to know if you folks's desire for a protest vote is so strong that you'd prefer Donald Trump in the White House rather than voting for Obama over your ideal candidate. Keep framing the debate that way. It's not a "protest vote" to vote for someone who more closely aligns with your ideology instead of voting for someone who barely aligns with your ideology. It's democracy, and the continuation of a system where we have to vote for one of two terrible choices completely beholden to corporate interests is anti-democratic. How loose are you on your principles? How many more times do you think you need to vote Democrat before they bother to do anything about climate change?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 03:40 PM) I never said voting for a 3rd party is sitting on the sidelines, people were saying they wouldnt vote at all. And not voting at all is sitting on the sidelines. Not sure how that comment could be read any other way. (Edit) Voting is working in the system, so if you are voting you are by definition trying to work within the system. Because some people were trying to frame it in the "you have to pick either a dem or a rep or it doesn't count" bulls***.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 03:29 PM) How is voting for a 3rd party candidate considered sitting on the sidelines? Just keep voting (D), one day they're bound to actually do something worthy of the label "liberal"!

Voting for 3rd party candidates and convincing people to stop voting for terrible candidates/parties just because they're Not Republicans isn't sitting on the sidelines. Voting for mainstream Dem politicians who will not enact any progressive policies is not going to change the system, and it isn't going to push the party to the left, either.

My point is that the system we have (Dem or Rep) is terrible and that I feel no desire or need to work within that system. Continuing to vote for bad Democrat candidates only ensures that, in the future, I'll have to keep voting for bad Democrat candidates.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 03:20 PM) In no way does that make Nucks fans understand how dirty their team is, not even the season long discrepancy in penalties vs the Hawks. Its 100% because Canadian teams dont bring enough revenue to the NHL. The 'Nucks are just so talented, there's no way they could be committing penalties!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 03:00 PM) I tend to agree with this. If a 3rd party candidate shows they have any real shot, I would certainly consider it. But if they can't get even the hint of a groundswell of support, something beyond a 3% type level, then I won't waste my vote that way. The DNC and RNC thank you for buying into this idea which perpetuates the two-party system.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:53 PM) They tried to pass health care during that time period, or no? Yeah, and they started by taking any form of UHC completely off the table. They started at what should have been a worst-case compromise position with a very weak minority party.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:46 PM) They are trying to win, and most political theory would suggest that you pander to the middle. Some would actually argue that our entire system was built on the fringe being marginalized by the majority. The only way the Democrats are going to get more progressive, is by winning more. If they lose votes, they dont think "We arent progressive enough" they think "We were too progressive." In my opinion, not voting for Demcorats will drive them even further from the "progressive" agenda, but its your vote. Either by choice or by incompetence, they allow the Republicans to define what the middle is on every single issue. Obama and the rest of the Democrats have routinely come to the table with a highly compromised position and negotiated from there. The whole last two years with the Republicans and the Tea Party contradicts your idea here. I don't think you'd argue that the Republicans have gone even harder to the right, and they did it after getting their asses handed to them in 2008. Why would the Democrats suddenly get more progressive if they keep winning elections while doing absolutely nothing to support progressive policies? Why wouldn't they see liberal 3rd party candidates leeching a lot of their votes and think "oh s***, maybe we should stop taking them for granted?" If they know that they're getting the liberal vote no matter what, they've no need to enact any liberal policies and will just make hand-wringing excuses *Dixiecrats!* *Blue Dogs!* for their failure.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) I will. Feel great when a bunch of old people die because your candidate wasn't perfect. Hey, too bad the Democrats never had giant majorities in the Senate and House and controlled the Presidency, then they could have passed UHC! Real environmental regulation! Real financial regulation! Reduced DoD funding! Stopped doing terrible s*** at Gitmo! etc. etc. Feel great when this country continues to see-saw between 100% terrible and 90% terrible because you keep supporting really, really bad candidates who are marginally better than Republicans at best.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:36 PM) not compromising your beliefs does not mean you cut off your nose to spite your face. You can either be productive, or a petulant child. But when president Palin rolls into office and starts passing archaic s***, defunds health care and education, and anything remotely progressive just because it's progressive, I don't want to see you complain one f***ing time. Because you put her there. Voting for Democrats isn't helpful. Not voting for a terrible Democrat isn't acting like a "petulant child" but instead voting for a candidate you support and voicing your support for their politics and your opposition to mainstream Democrat and Republican politics. Not voting for a terrible Democrat to keep out a more terrible Republican isn't a vote for a Republican; that's a s*** argument put out by Democrat apologists and people who want to keep the current two-party s***fest going. Look, 2009-2011 laid it out pretty clearly--the Democrats either don't give a s*** about progressive policies (yes) or they're incompetent cowards incapable of governing and fighting back against terrible Republican policies (also yes). Why does their terrible performance over the last two years deserve my vote in 2012?

I'd rather not compromise my beliefs and ideals to end up with a slightly less-terrible-than-Republicans alternative. Democrats do not represent my politics in theory or in practice. Continuing to vote for Democrats will not get us closer to any real progressive agenda, and so I won't vote for them.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 02:02 PM) No third party is going to rise to power without significant sources of money. Its not about votes, its about the price to get yourself there. The only way a third party will spring from the ground without the necessity of significant sources of capital would be someone who in and of themselves, is already well known., Some one who has a cult of personality that could break through the wall that the 2 party system has created. And even then, it has failed. Teddy ran as a third party and lost, Perot lost. What should not be forgotten is that in either of those years, if you added Roosevelt to Taft or Perot to Bush, the mainstream party candidate would have won. Ballots arent for being pragmatic, they are for winning and losing. I feel I lose with either the Democrats or the Republicans. Why should I vote for them?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2011 -> 01:30 PM) Ill never find a candidate I agree with, its just picking the lesser of 2 evils. I would support Kucinich even if I don't agree with him on everything.

"Dem or Rep" is a false dichotomy, that's the point, it's the reason both parties are objectively terrible. Yeah, I'm closer to the Democrats than the Republicans, but I still think they're generally a terrible party that won't advance an agenda I agree with. If the choices were the Republican party or the Constitution party, I wouldn't vote Republican just because I think they're less terrible than the Constitution party. I'm not going to pretend that I support Obama, and he won't get my vote. I know it's a doomed effort, but the attitude of "Welp gotta pick the dem, at least he doesn't openly support violations of civil and human rights, just in practice!" is a big part of the damn problem. No third party is going to rise to power if I vote for a democrat because he's slightly less terrible than a republican. Listen to Malcom X's The Bullet or the Ballot speech, especially around the 30 min mark which is the part I quoted, and tell me you can't just replace Dixiecrats with Blue Dogs and get the 2011 version.