People were getting on the poster for not voting Harris or Trump. So it wasn’t about the choice they made, it was about the choice they didn’t make (voting D or R… and in this thread, let’s be honest, it’s just voting D).
That’s different than mocking or lacking respect someone for a specific choice.
Well... yeah. I'm analogizing not voting D, in this instance, to being a flat earther.
Quote:
For all we know, someone who doesn’t vote would have voted for Trump if they had to choose between the two. Isn’t not voting the better choice in that circumstance, all things considered?
I think that just as you say "let's be honest" about this thread, we can be honest that the people who say "I don't like either party, I'm not voting", are almost exclusively people who would normally vote Republican, but don't want the well-deserved-at-this-point social stain of being lumped in with Trump voters, or can't stomach pulling that lever in terms of their own self-respect. And at that point, isn't the obvious response, "look, you obviously see what we see when we look at Trump; FFS just do the right thing and get rid of the guy, and go back to voting for whoever the new incarnation of Mike Pence is or whatever".
And all of that aside, I still don't see why these people shouldn't be mocked. They deserve it. Watch that Buttigieg video where he's talking to "undecided voters" and try to tell me with a straight face that those people aren't begging for mockery.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
People were getting on the poster for not voting Harris or Trump. So it wasn’t about the choice they made, it was about the choice they didn’t make (voting D or R… and in this thread, let’s be honest, it’s just voting D).
That’s different than mocking or lacking respect someone for a specific choice.
For all we know, someone who doesn’t vote would have voted for Trump if they had to choose between the two. Isn’t not voting the better choice in that circumstance, all things considered?
People keep saying “a vote for 3rd party or no vote is a vote for Trump” but that’s only effectively true if, when pushed to vote for one of the two, there’s no chance they’d vote Trump.
Otherwise a vote for Trump is the only actual vote for Trump. And I would prefer, if the only choice for some voters is Trump or no vote, that they don’t vote.
I woke up this morning and chose violence.
A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. He was praising her yesterday; hmm I wonder why.
I get it the lady is from California and the vote likely means #### all at the of the day because the Democrats will win, but it's still symbolic of their beliefs and saying they are both the same because she said "fight".
Same poster has said they have never seen a Trump yard sign, when everyone else the opposite.
And all of that aside, I still don't see why these people shouldn't be mocked. They deserve it. Watch that Buttigieg video where he's talking to "undecided voters" and try to tell me with a straight face that those people aren't begging for mockery.
They were all undecided, and some of them really well spoken and intelligent, or at least aware of how little they know and willing to listen.
Notice that Buttigueg didn’t mock any of them. Not the loopy “environmentalist” and not even the Trump supporter pretending to be an undecided. And he pushed a lot more of them to Harris than any other direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts
A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. He was praising her yesterday; hmm I wonder why.
I get it the lady is from California and the vote likely means #### all at the of the day because the Democrats will win, but it's still symbolic of their beliefs and saying they are both the same because she said "fight".
Same poster has said they have never seen a Trump yard sign, when everyone else the opposite.
Just to be clear, I’m well aware that particular poster is totally full of baloney.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. He was praising her yesterday; hmm I wonder why.
I get it the lady is from California and the vote likely means #### all at the of the day because the Democrats will win, but it's still symbolic of their beliefs and saying they are both the same because she said "fight".
Same poster has said they have never seen a Trump yard sign, when everyone else the opposite.
Haven't followed this close enough, but is the right vote still split with the Libertarian candidates?
I think voting 3rd party or not voting should be respected, not mocked. People should always vote in line with with their own morals or beliefs, even if a single issue where arguably too much weight is going toward the one issue is guiding that vote.
Why should irrational voting be respected, and not mocked? A truly moral person would do the best they can to advance their causes, which means choosing between the viable choices. Someone who throws their vote away is actually a traitor to their professed causes (*cough* NDP voters *cough*). The only exception I see is if you're specifically valuing not voting (e.g. First Nations who don't see themselves as Canadian, but even they might be shooting themselves in the foot sometimes).
The argument you are making is useful only to whoever is benefiting from the vote splitting. And if your position leads to dog poop for dinner, you're probably taking a bad position. It wouldn't be result-oriented thinking if the result is predictable.
They were all undecided, and some of them really well spoken and intelligent, or at least aware of how little they know and willing to listen.
I must have missed the intelligent ones. Maybe in contrast to the clearly stupid ones they seemed intelligent? I dunno man.
Quote:
Notice that Buttigueg didn’t mock any of them. Not the loopy “environmentalist” and not even the Trump supporter pretending to be an undecided. And he pushed a lot more of them to Harris than any other direction.
Waaaaaait wait wait. Hold the phone. Have we done a whole freaky Friday thing where YOU'RE the one championing the marketplace of ideas and the value of conversation in terms of winning ideological debates and bringing people to your side instead of making fun of them? That can't be what's happening here. Is that what's happening here?
Anyway I'm glad there are Pete Buttigieges... Buttigiei? Out there fighting the good fight like this and going on Fox News to calmly explain why Democrats aren't actively murdering newborn babies or injecting them with transgender genes or 5g or whatnot, but I'm sorry, it's not 2016 anymore and people should know better at this point, and I'm just... I'm gonna have to take at least today, of all days, to mock them. If only to cope with the possibility that they actually stumbled into a voting booth and pulled the lever for a Putin surrogate (either of them).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Why should irrational voting be respected, and not mocked? A truly moral person would do the best they can to advance their causes, which means choosing between the viable choices. Someone who throws their vote away is actually a traitor to their professed causes (*cough* NDP voters *cough*). The only exception I see is if you're specifically valuing not voting (e.g. First Nations who don't see themselves as Canadian, but even they might be shooting themselves in the foot sometimes).
The argument you are making is useful only to whoever is benefiting from the vote splitting. And if your position leads to dog poop for dinner, you're probably taking a bad position. It wouldn't be result-oriented thinking if the result is predictable.
How does a choice become viable if nobody ever supports it?
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I must have missed the intelligent ones. Maybe in contrast to the clearly stupid ones they seemed intelligent? I dunno man.
Waaaaaait wait wait. Hold the phone. Have we done a whole freaky Friday thing where YOU'RE the one championing the marketplace of ideas and the value of conversation in terms of winning ideological debates and bringing people to your side instead of making fun of them? That can't be what's happening here. Is that what's happening here?
Anyway I'm glad there are Pete Buttigieges... Buttigiei? Out there fighting the good fight like this and going on Fox News to calmly explain why Democrats aren't actively murdering newborn babies or injecting them with transgender genes or 5g or whatnot, but I'm sorry, it's not 2016 anymore and people should know better at this point, and I'm just... I'm gonna have to take at least today, of all days, to mock them. If only to cope with the possibility that they actually stumbled into a voting booth and pulled the lever for a Putin surrogate (either of them).
That's why i said, I've never seen Pepsifree on this side
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
What is your point with this thought process. Last time the DOJ backed down and didn’t send observers in Missouri.
We know in 2023 states limited access. We know 3 states have threatened to do it this time. Why don’t you believe it will happen. What kind of evidence would change your mind here
DOJ was allowed in all three states. So I guess I believed right.
Waaaaaait wait wait. Hold the phone. Have we done a whole freaky Friday thing where YOU'RE the one championing the marketplace of ideas and the value of conversation in terms of winning ideological debates and bringing people to your side instead of making fun of them? That can't be what's happening here. Is that what's happening here?
Anyway I'm glad there are Pete Buttigieges... Buttigiei? Out there fighting the good fight like this and going on Fox News to calmly explain why Democrats aren't actively murdering newborn babies or injecting them with transgender genes or 5g or whatnot, but I'm sorry, it's not 2016 anymore and people should know better at this point, and I'm just... I'm gonna have to take at least today, of all days, to mock them. If only to cope with the possibility that they actually stumbled into a voting booth and pulled the lever for a Putin surrogate (either of them).
Baby, you know I love mocking the plebs and I’m not here to stop you from doing just that. I’m just saying there’s an approach here that’s probably more effective in certain cases, and even if there isn’t, if we care about democracy we need to be careful about how we frame the mockery we delight in.
I know people mean well by mocking 3rd party/non voters, because their assumption is those people should vote Dem and they’re probably right. But the reality is that a bunch of those people would also vote Trump. And maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess if a lot more Republicans who disliked Trump but had the weird need to vote Republican regardless decided to stay home instead.
If you are in a swing state, you have a job to do today.
If you are anywhere else in the nation it's nonesense to say choosing neither or voting for Stein is a vote for Trump.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to EldrickOnIce For This Useful Post:
DOJ was allowed in all three states. So I guess I believed right.
I don’t think the situation we were discussing ever occurred. Judges in Missouri and Texas refused to grant injunctions and the states agreed to let them in.
I think you said they wouldn’t be able to go to court in time. In the Missouri case the courts ruled in favour of the DOJ. We never really got the test of the DOJ trying to go when a state tried to ban them.[QUOTE][/QUOTE]
But if a court rules certain aspects of the act unconstitutional then the Justice department has no right to be there.
The other said
Quote:
It is the Justice department, how are they going to stop them?
Right wing nuts: We refuse to let you in to do your job!
Justice department: Well these military guys with guns say you will.
And
Quote:
And exactly how is that going to happen before an election tmrw? Looking at your posts I am assuming you are a republican supporter?
I will let you decide which of the two posters more accurately described the process of what would happen.
How does a choice become viable if nobody ever supports it?
Perhaps that's the point? Sometimes a choice shouldn't be viable. They should be wholly rejected so that the flawed party course corrects. If it's close, they think they are on to something.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
In terms of tracking what’s going on this 538 site should be really useful. It uses 2020 data to track on a county by county basis the returns we should expect if the state was tied.
