Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    29 Apr '16 05:202 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The reality is that unless the political deck is radically reshuffled, a Republican will win a Presidential election
    at some point in the near future. A Trump Presidency in 2017 might be preferable to a Ted Cruz one in 2021.
    I don't object to Soothfast or No1Marauder not voting for Hillary Clinton.
    But let's not pretend that four years of President Trump would not do significant, perhaps
    irreparable, harm to some people who are more vulnerable than financially secure white men.
    And I would add that it's premature to speculate about a President Ted Cruz in 2021.
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    29 Apr '16 06:06
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I don't object to Soothfast or No1Marauder not voting for Hillary Clinton.
    But let's not pretend that four years of President Trump would not do significant, perhaps
    irreparable, harm to some people who are more vulnerable than financially secure white men.
    And I would add that it's premature to speculate about a President Ted Cruz in 2021.
    I use Cruz as an example; the plain truth is that most major Republican figures and office holders are even more ideologically extreme than Trump.
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    29 Apr '16 06:10
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    There is the moral issue of whether someone who considers themselves "liberal" wants to share the blood guilt from the enhanced military operations that Hillary will surely engage in.

    A progressive might also wonder whether four years of a unpopular, ineffectual Hillary would really be better in the long run than the disaster the Republicans would cau ...[text shortened]... well lead to long term Democratic dominance while the former merely kicks the can down the road.
    You overestimate people's long-term memory.
  4. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    29 Apr '16 06:13
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I use Cruz as an example; the plain truth is that most major Republican figures and office holders are even more ideologically extreme than Trump.
    Everyone is more ideologically extreme than Trump because he hardly has one except for "foreigner bad. me good. murica great."
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Apr '16 07:21
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I use Cruz as an example; the plain truth is that most major Republican figures and office holders are even more ideologically extreme than Trump.
    The concerns about Trump are not extreme ideology. The concerns about Trump are extreme stupidity, dishonesty, a message of violence, sexism, racism, xenophobia, and more. Trump plays on peoples dislikes and fears to get them to support him. This is hardly new for a politician but he takes it to the extreme. Other politicians who have done the same in the past have become terrible leaders.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    29 Apr '16 07:54
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The concerns about Trump are not extreme ideology. The concerns about Trump are extreme stupidity, dishonesty, a message of violence, sexism, racism, xenophobia, and more. Trump plays on peoples dislikes and fears to get them to support him. This is hardly new for a politician but he takes it to the extreme. Other politicians who have done the same in the past have become terrible leaders.
    (Shrug) So Trump will be a terrible leader. That hardly affects the points I have made.
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Apr '16 08:14
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Because not voting for her is essentially a half vote for Drumpf. If she wins the nomination, it is no-longer just a vote for the individual but a vote for the party. If they are democrats, they should vote democrat. If they are not, then hopefully next season they will form their own party.
    no.

    a candidate should only try to be slightly better than the other to get your vote?

    "If they are democrats, they should vote democrat"
    no matter how much they disagree with her positions or the party's positions?
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Apr '16 08:181 edit
    Originally posted by quackquack
    The overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters will find Hillary more to their liking. Hillary should become more conservative so she can attract independents and people who tends to vote Republican but don't like Drumpf.
    the overwhelming majority of sanders got interested in politics again because of sanders. They won't default to clinton just because she is slightly better than trump, they will go back to not giving a crap about that broken system you call US democracy.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    29 Apr '16 08:33
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    the overwhelming majority of sanders got interested in politics again because of sanders. They won't default to clinton just because she is slightly better than trump, they will go back to not giving a crap about that broken system you call US democracy.
    The polls I have seen show that currently about 20-25 per cent of Sanders voters say they won't vote for Hillary in November. Once passions cool down that percentage will almost certainly drop as it has done in similar circumstances in the past. I suspect Clinton will wind up getting at least 90 per cent of Sanders' primary voters in the general election.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Apr '16 09:03
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    no.

    a candidate should only try to be slightly better than the other to get your vote?
    Actually candidates should be trying to be anything to get your vote.
    Votes should be based on what you think the candidate will be like as president. Are they capable of doing a good job?
    In addition there is the party aspect where the party policies (which should largely align with the candidates policies) should be more important than the individual at the head of the party.

    no matter how much they disagree with her positions or the party's positions?
    If they disagree strongly enough with the parties positions, they should quit the party and start a new one. The time to influence the party and its positions is in the primaries, or after the general election. The general election is for influencing which party is in power.
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    29 Apr '16 09:34
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Actually candidates should be trying to be anything to get your vote.
    Votes should be based on what you think the candidate will be like as president. Are they capable of doing a good job?
    In addition there is the party aspect where the party policies (which should largely align with the candidates policies) should be more important than the individual ...[text shortened]... or after the general election. The general election is for influencing which party is in power.
    "Actually candidates should be trying to be anything to get your vote."
    in this case, clinton isn't trying anything to get Sander's supporters votes

    "Votes should be based on what you think the candidate will be like as president."
    not voting for anyone is also and expression of what you think about the candidates as presidents. that you are so against them both or they aren't worth the time it would take to vote.

    "In addition there is the party aspect where the party policies (which should largely align with the candidates policies) should be more important than the individual at the head of the party."
    one can be a democrat (or republican or anything) and disagree with the party policies. one may continue to consider him/herself a democrat but choose to not vote if he doesn't have someone to vote for.

    "If they disagree strongly enough with the parties positions, they should quit the party and start a new one"
    or try to work for fixing the party. or simply not care enough to leave.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Apr '16 09:45
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    (Shrug) So Trump will be a terrible leader. That hardly affects the points I have made.
    And I didn't dispute any point you had made, certainly not the one I replied to. In fact my post explicitly agreed with it.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Apr '16 09:53
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "Actually candidates should be trying to be anything to get your vote."
    in this case, clinton isn't trying anything to get Sander's supporters votes
    It was a typo. I intended to say 'should not'.

    not voting for anyone is also and expression of what you think about the candidates as presidents. that you are so against them both or they aren't worth the time it would take to vote.
    It is however a largely ineffectual expression - especially in an election system that doesn't require a majority.

    one can be a democrat (or republican or anything) and disagree with the party policies.
    But if one has significant enough disagreement, then they should leave and start a new party. The whole point of party politics is to gather together people with similar views.

    one may continue to consider him/herself a democrat but choose to not vote if he doesn't have someone to vote for.
    Yes, one may. Its not a good strategy though if one wants that party to remain in power which one would if one agrees with the politics of that party over in preference to the politics of another party that may win instead.

    or try to work for fixing the party.
    It the differences are minor then fixing the party is the correct solution. This is done with internal party politics (primaries), not with interparty politics (general election). Failure to accept the results of the primaries suggests a lack of belief in democracy.

    or simply not care enough to leave.
    Of course there will be people who simply don't care, and people who do stupid stuff etc etc etc.
    I have talked about what people should do, not what they will do.
  14. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55792
    29 Apr '16 12:061 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    the overwhelming majority of sanders got interested in politics again because of sanders. They won't default to clinton just because she is slightly better than trump, they will go back to not giving a crap about that broken system you call US democracy.
    I certainly hope you are right as it would make the world a better place, but in our splintered society most people vote for the candidate they hate the least. As No.1 stated that means over 90% of Sanders supporters would probable vote for Clinton.
  15. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    30 Apr '16 10:13
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    no.

    a candidate should only try to be slightly better than the other to get your vote?

    "If they are democrats, they should vote democrat"
    no matter how much they disagree with her positions or the party's positions?
    A rational voter (who bothers voting) will seek to optimize outcomes for himself which will always be the least worst candidate (in their estimation). In a first-past-the-post system, where influence is not proportional to the proportion of votes cast, the optimal choice may be someone who is even worse than the least worst candidate.
Back to Top