U.S. Politics Thread (2017 going forward)

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

@-Antares-
Maybe I'm missunderstanding something here. Are you saing that you vote but don't want to hold any responsibility that comes with your vote?

No, I think you are misunderstanding something. Those of us that did vote for someone who was not Trump nor Clinton, stand by our vote. We do not accept that these two people are worth becoming President and did what was in our power to prevent either of them from being President. Some people like to fight greater evil with a lesser evil, but the result is still evil. When presented with a choice that has more than two possible answers and one or more of those answers is not a greater or lesser evil, you should pick one of the non-evil candidates. That would seem to be the logical course of action.

[-Antares-]

Originally Posted by Demi.

Nah, he's telling you guys to stop getting off to your pretentious hoity-toity comments and reflect upon what you're saying. He's voting for who best represents his own views, this is how the election process is supposed to work. His responsibility is to vote, it's not to pander to the ideologies of others.

Close enough. Most of the rest of you have no idea because you're too focused on scary scary Trump.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

No, I think you are misunderstanding something. Those of us that did vote for someone who was not Trump nor Clinton, stand by our vote. We do not accept that these two people are worth becoming President and did what was in our power to prevent either of them from being President. Some people like to fight greater evil with a lesser evil, but the result is still evil. When presented with a choice that has more than two possible answers and one or more of those answers is not a greater or lesser evil, you should pick one of the non-evil candidates. That would seem to be the logical course of action.

That's very nice and all. And that's how I voted. But I voted in Australia, where the system is designed to suit your argument. Where I can voted against the two parties but ALSO have the lesser evil as my 2nd choice.

That is not how the American voting system works.

As I say, it is kind of cute that you are pretending you are playing a game with an entirely different set of roles. But you still lost the game anyway, because the rules of the game matters.

[Akito Kinomoto]

To quote Dave Rubin, "both things can be true"; you vote for who you feel best represents your interests, and our point to most of the Dems specifically is if they wanna push Hillary, they need to be honest about her because most folks weren't buying it

"Vote for who you want to vote for" and "if you want to win, you should really do this" are not mutually exclusive things

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

That's very nice and all. And that's how I voted. But I voted in Australia, where the system is designed to suit your argument. Where I can voted against the two parties but ALSO have the lesser evil as my 2nd choice.

That is not how the American voting system works.

As I say, it is kind of cute that you are pretending you are playing a game with an entirely different set of roles. But you still lost the game anyway, because the rules of the game matters.

Rules are the rules. One vote, one vote only. It is not about making ones vote count, it is about making your own choice. This election, by the rules, no one in California mattered in the slightest. Yet millions voted anyway. Over 14 million people voted in this state (there are over 38 million people that live here, though certainly not all are registered voters for one reason or another). Nearly a million of those voted for someone that was not Clinton or Trump. Around 7% of the votes were third party here. Which is I believe more than the total number of people living in Delaware.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Rules are the rules. One vote, one vote only. It is not about making ones vote count, it is about making your own choice. This election, by the rules, no one in California mattered in the slightest. Yet millions voted anyway. Over 14 million people voted in this state (there are over 38 million people that live here, though certainly not all are registered voters for one reason or another). Nearly a million of those voted for someone that was not Clinton or Trump. Around 7% of the votes were third party here. Which is I believe more than the total number of people living in Delaware.

Yes, it is about making your own choice, absolutely. And you made it clear that Trump winning is no different from Clinton winning, for YOU.

I am not disagreeing with your right to make that choice. I am disagreeing with the choice itself.

You made the decision that Trump and Clinton are equal. That is literally what your vote did. And those of us outside looking in just wants you to admit that you played your part.

No, I am not telling you to vote Clinton. I am telling you that you supported Trump's victory, and that denying it doesn't change that. I don't care that you decided they are equally bad, I just want you to admit that you genuinely believe Donald Trump is just as good a president as Clinton. Something the rest of the planet disagree with.

[Endscape]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

The potential was there. That's what was important, and that's what you don't seem to comprehend. 0% isn't possible, by the way.

This is a non-argument. There's the potential for a huge bag of money to fall on my lawn today, but I don't live my life assuming that will happen.

Originally Posted by Demi.

Nah, he's telling you guys to stop getting off to your pretentious hoity-toity comments and reflect upon what you're saying. He's voting for who best represents his own views, this is how the election process is supposed to work. His responsibility is to vote, it's not to pander to the ideologies of others.

This is great and all, but the fact is, it adds up to the same thing as writing in Mickey Mouse.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

No, I think you are misunderstanding something. Those of us that did vote for someone who was not Trump nor Clinton, stand by our vote. We do not accept that these two people are worth becoming President and did what was in our power to prevent either of them from being President.

And how did that work out for you?

Whether you accept it or not, the reality was one of those two was going to win. Being disgusted with the whole thing and not voting is fine, but voting for someone who had no chance and then behaving as if you made a logical decision is just disingenuous

Some people like to fight greater evil with a lesser evil, but the result is still evil.

That's reality for you.

When presented with a choice that has more than two possible answers and one or more of those answers is not a greater or lesser evil, you should pick one of the non-evil candidates. That would seem to be the logical course of action.

There were only two chances that had an actual chance at success, like there always are. You can bet on an impossibility all you like, but don't pretend it's logical to do so.

[Ithekro]

14 million voters is more than voted in 2008 and 2012, and the percentage of third party voters in the state for both years was less than 3%. In 1992, third party candidate Ross Perot too over 20% of the California vote. I would also point out that was when California became a Blue State. It had been a Red state prior to that. The change being Clinton, the end of the Cold War, and the rise and a very anti-military Bay Area (San Francisco was practically hostile to the US Military) and the closing a many, many military bases.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Yes, it is about making your own choice, absolutely. And you made it clear that Trump winning is no different from Clinton winning, for YOU.

I am not disagreeing with your right to make that choice. I am disagreeing with the choice itself.

You made the decision that Trump and Clinton are equal. That is literally what your vote did. And those of us outside looking in just wants you to admit that you played your part.

No, I am not telling you to vote Clinton. I am telling you that you supported Trump's victory, and that denying it doesn't change that. I don't care that you decided they are equally bad, I just want you to admit that you genuinely believe Donald Trump is just as good a president as Clinton. Something the rest of the planet disagree with.

And we are telling you your conclusion is incorrect. Or your are phasing it in such a way to twist the meaning. Both are terrible and do not deserve to be President. Does that make them equal? No. Does it make them fit for office? No. We agree with the rest of the Planet that Trump is bad. But we are also telling you that Clinton is bad, and we wanted someone...anyone, aside from these two. And we voted for a third way because we could.

And how did that work out for you?

Whether you accept it or not, the reality was one of those two was going to win. Being disgusted with the whole thing and not voting is fine, but voting for someone who had no chance and then behaving as if you made a logical decision is just disingenuous

Not voting suggests you don't care, and generally presents the citizen no right to complain. I can complain, I voted. One of the two was likely to win. But the general disgust was becoming larger, so the hope was that the people (via the Internet because the Media does nothing) would vote for a third party, because it is an option.

[Endscape]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

And we are telling you your conclusion is incorrect. Or your are phasing it in such a way to twist the meaning. Both are terrible and do not deserve to be President. Does that make them equal? No. Does it make them fit for office? No. We agree with the rest of the Planet that Trump is bad. But we are also telling you that Clinton is bad

You say you believe Trump is bad, but obviously you didn't believe he was so bad that you had to compromise to stop him from being elected. You didn't believe Clinton was so bad that you had to compromise to stop her from being elected. Functionally speaking, you are treating them the same.

I'm sure you believe differently, and I don't deny the validity of that belief, but that is the actual effect of your choice.

and we wanted someone...anyone, aside from these two. And we voted for a third way because we could.

And that's fine. Everyone has the right to vote because they can. Just don't pretend as if it was a choice that was actually going to have an effect beyond how it makes you feel.

Not voting suggests you don't care, and generally presents the citizen no right to complain. I can complain, I voted.

I'm curious as to why you believe non-voters can't complain, and you can? Non-voters have disengaged with the election, and you've basically done the same.

One of the two was likely to win. But the general disgust was becoming larger, so the hope was that the people (via the Internet because the Media does nothing) would vote for a third party, because it is an option.

As a politically plugged in person, did you see any signs of this huge third wave vote the day before the election? Or were you hoping it would simply happen?

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

I don't have the time or proper mindset right now (remember, I'm mentally unhealthy thanks to America's awful society and culture :^)) to post a response to every single one of you arguing with me. You don't understand the meaning of chance. You don't understand what it takes to change. You don't understand anything at all but status quo and ��scary monsters��. If Trump is really a devil then let him ruin the US. It deserves it for what it's done, and for its political weakness.

Nobody who voted for a third party candidate, in ANY state, did anything wrong. You're the ones in the wrong for perpetuating the "lesser of two evils" mindset. Those are the facts. That's the truth.

All I ever said from the beginning here is that if you did not vote or voted for a third party candidate instead of Hillary Clinton while believing in the vast majority of progressive causes that she supported, then you are simply an ignorant fool. Additionally, if our progressive causes all get walked back, damning an entire generation of people to shitty outcomes then you indeed OWN this as a third party voter. It was simple common sense in this election.

Personally it is not even a matter of lesser of two evils. I actually do not think Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate. She is ultra qualified to hold that position, and probably would have done a pretty decent job in my opinion. I definitely hold some strong disagreements with her, but that doesn't make her "evil" in my eyes. If you are a Republican and believed she is bad because of her policies then that's different than the dumb "progressive" who did not realize what was at stake this election.

Originally Posted by GDB

It's one thing to harp on someone who voted third party and complains about Trump, but Antares clearly isn't doing that. People need to stop moving the goalposts for assigning/shifting responsibility.

I don't know man. This is like saying last century white southern voters aren't responsible for holding back civil rights for African Americans because they liked their candidate. Your vote carries responsibility no matter how you slice it. Voters are what make Democratic societies function and they live or die on the choices of the people. How can you not harp on people for making irresponsible choices?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

How can you not harp on people for making irresponsible choices?

Because that's all this thread has been for about a month now, and not a single person has had their opinion on the matter changed.

[Toukairin]

Originally Posted by Galaxian

The court decided not to lift the suspension to Trump's travel ban.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38927175

We should be celebrating that instead of sticking on whatever discussion that is going on here. Up yours, Drumpf.

Even Hillary Clinton's Twitter account trolled Drumpf with the "3-0" quote referring to the vote by the court.

[Ithekro]

I was seeing a growing dissatisfaction locally. More and more people getting fed up with both Trump and Clinton as the election came closer and closer. Several were deciding not to vote. I would remind them there are alternatives to either party.

Disengaging from the election cannot, by its very nature as an inaction, cause any amount of change since they only count people that voted. Only some states even call into question the number of people voting if it gets down to something like 5% of the population that voted. While it is a similar number of people that are required to get third parties recognized in the same states, getting the majority of the remaining voters to vote should be easier than getting over 95% of the population to not vote at all. Otherwise no message gets across and the politicians will just go on like they have been.

I am an undeclared voter. I refuse to join a party. No single one of them hold enough of my interests to make me unilaterally support just one of them, therefore I will not bind myself, or my money, to one of them exclusively. However I take my citizenship seriously and will vote. But I will vote on my terms. Some years I might vote Republican. Some years I might vote Democrat. Some years I might vote Green or Libertarian, or American Independent, or Reform, depending on what the politician is offering to bring to the position. This year, neither Trump nor Clinton brought anything I was wiling to vote for to the table and enough things I was willing to vote against. Therefore I would vote for someone that appealed to how I think, rather than anyone's party line.

Also one should remember. That before election day, the media was basically telling us that Clinton would win without any issues. I went in to vote fully expected Clinton to win. Not that that mattered really since I had refused to vote for her long ago and refused to vote for Trump even to spite her. So I voted anyway. I didn't hear anything about the election until very late that night when suddenly, Trump was more or less winning the election. I was surprised. Though California still overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, in the end, it didn't even matter. I did what I meant to do and it remains on record along with the other 79,340 voters that voted for Sanders in this state.

Even on the national level, the Electoral College actually had electors that cast their votes for third party candidates. The largest number since 1968 when George Wallace managed to take the Deep South against Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

That's very nice and all. And that's how I voted. But I voted in Australia, where the system is designed to suit your argument. Where I can voted against the two parties but ALSO have the lesser evil as my 2nd choice.

That is not how the American voting system works.

As I say, it is kind of cute that you are pretending you are playing a game with an entirely different set of roles. But you still lost the game anyway, because the rules of the game matters.

I suspect you're not appreciating the scope of our electoral system just because you're engaging into an argument with Itherko's voting choice. He could have voted 10000 times for Hilary in California and she still goes on to lose the election. Whether he voted for or against Hilary in California she still wins California's electoral votes and then goes on to lose.

The argument for if-people-didn't-vote-third-party-he wouldn't-have-won is balooney because of the make up of our electoral college where only a handful of states/people decide who wins the election.

And besides, Itherko literally has been stuck in this position of the lesser-of-two-evil argument for as long as I read him in these politics threads which dates back to Obama's first election at least. I personally think he just copies and pastes his very first post in politics and amends a few words here and there to raise his primary point, both parties are evil so I am voting third party... oh and I live in California.

Point is if you're engaging a Californian or a New Yorker to evoke a moral outrage because of how they voted then you obviously don't fully appreciate the limitation of our Electoral College system. If Hitler was running for president under the Democratic Party then, guess what, he was winning California and New York. And if he ran in this cycle, he would have lost because there are a lot of angry votes will be cast against the party in the south and the midwest which will decide the electoral map in GOP's favor.

I also should say I really appreciate you Aussies for keeping this thread tick along. Without you in the mix I think this thread wouldn't have been as much interesting. Hello to everyone else as well!!!

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

The argument for if-people-didn't-vote-third-party-he wouldn't-have-won is balooney because of the make up of our electoral college where only a handful of states/people decide who wins the election.

No, I am not saying his vote was the decider. I am saying because he voted the way he did, which he is 100% allowed to do, he had to take his share of the responsibility of the results.

He is a voter. An election is made up of voters. Voters need to be responsible for their own decisions.

By your argument, no one needed to vote, because no one ever decide the election by themselves. Thus there is no need for elections.

I have always said, I treat being a voter as being a government official. You are a part of the government and voting is your responsibility. And what you do with that vote is up to you, but your choice also holds you responsible for your own action.

It is fascinating that American voters are able to believe they are outside the government. Must be that frontier spirit I heard so much about.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

By your argument, no one needed to vote, because no one ever decide the election by themselves. Thus there is no need for elections.

You might be onto something....it probably explains why 90 mil eligible voters stayed home.

It is fascinating that American voters are able to believe they are outside the government. Must be that frontier spirit I heard so much about.

It's hard to explain to a person from a country that affected a nationwide change after one mass shooting. Your government did it. Our government, on the other hand,..... hahahahahahaha

Yeah, it's hard to explain....

[Ithekro]

I am responsible for my vote. My vote helped neither Trump nor Clinton get into office. It did not help Sander much either, but that was one more vote to him in one state. However the state elector that voted for him was from Hawaii, not California.

Changing the Electoral College, or at least how different states select their electors, since that is up to the states, is a whole mess of a process. I am not even certain if California's Progressive Constitution will allow us to write a proposition to change its methods on picking electors to a proportional system, rather than a winner takes all. Not that that would have helped the Democrats at all this last election. Though that being a possibility would bring out more voters in this state....but potentially more Republican voters, since they are the ones that feel like their votes don't matter in California anymore (for President at least) since the State seems firmly entrenched with the Democratic Party for national scale interests. Partly because a lot of military families left the state when most of the bases closed in the early 90s. That also might be why San Diego is a heavy Republican voting area, since one of the few major Naval Bases on the West Coast is there.

[mangamuscle]

This bully is starting to look like a sissy:

Trump backs "One China" policy in call with China's Xi

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN15P0ED

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

The potential was there. That's what was important, and that's what you don't seem to comprehend. 0% isn't possible, by the way.

What potential exactly? 0% means impossible because it is. If you believed that someone not named Hillary/Trump was going to win then you're simply delusional.

Originally Posted by -Antares-

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Your bias is showing like mad.

You can be against the status quo and vote for Hillary. If you weren't so busy stomping your foot and insisting on voting 3rd party you'd see that too.

Originally Posted by monir

You might be onto something....it probably explains why 90 mil eligible voters stayed home.

It's hard to explain to a person from a country that affected a nationwide change after one mass shooting. Your government did it. Our government, on the other hand,..... hahahahahahaha

Yeah, it's hard to explain....

It's probably more constructive to discuss what other parties should or can do in order to present themselves as a realistic alternative in the span of the next eight to twelve years rather than what they should have done 3 months ago.

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by Galaxian

The court decided not to lift the suspension to Trump's travel ban.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38927175

I think its important to look at the Judges' actual opinion.

Its quite a read. Essentially, the DOJ tried making the most insane argument in front of the judges and got their asses handed to them.

Its not over yet though. SCOTUS will decide on it. But if its 4-4 there, the lower court's ruling will hold.

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

This bully is starting to look like a sissy:

Trump backs "One China" policy in call with China's Xi

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN15P0ED

Proper world leaders know how to walk that fine line between offending two parties at odds with eah other.

The Donald drunkenly meanders through it.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

It's probably more constructive to discuss what other parties should or can do in order to present themselves as a realistic alternative in the span of the next eight to twelve years rather than what they should have done 3 months ago.

I'm glad that someone's finally talking sense. That said, it would require people getting off their high horses, stop blaming people who voted 3rd-party (whose vote had no influence on Hillary losing), stop bashing people who didn't vote at all (the people that really cost Hillary the election) and start recognising that the problem lies with Democratic Party and the nominee that they elected (through unscrupulous and rather unneccessary means).